hookbase_list_tunnels

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that tunnels 'allow forwarding webhooks to local development servers,' which adds some context about functionality, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what the output format is (e.g., list of objects with fields), whether it requires specific permissions, or if there are rate limits. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose ('List all localhost tunnels in the organization') and followed by a brief explanatory note. Every sentence earns its place by adding value: the first defines the action and scope, and the second provides context about tunnels. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity is low (a list operation with 0 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and adds some context about tunnels, but it lacks details on output format, authentication, or behavioral traits. For a simple list tool, this is acceptable but leaves clear gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as the schema fully covers the absence of inputs, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List all') and resource ('localhost tunnels in the organization'), with a brief explanation of what tunnels do ('allow forwarding webhooks to local development servers'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'hookbase_get_tunnel_status' by focusing on listing all tunnels rather than getting status of a specific one. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations like 'hookbase_list_destinations' or 'hookbase_list_sources' beyond the resource type.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), when not to use it, or compare it to related tools like 'hookbase_get_tunnel_status' for specific tunnel details or 'hookbase_create_tunnel' for creating new ones. Usage is implied by the verb 'List,' but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.