tunnel_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it explicitly labels the operation as 'Read-only', describes the exact output format ('id | reads:N | max:N | expires:Ns'), handles the empty case ('the literal text 'No active tunnels''), and discloses a key behavioral constraint ('values are never included'). This goes beyond any schema info since the schema is empty.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and result, the second gives usage scenarios and an important exclusion, and the third provides the exact output format and empty response. No sentence is wasted, and the structure aids quick comprehension.

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?

For a simple, parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the operation, the data fields returned, the formatting, the empty case, and the read-only nature. It leaves no ambiguity about what the agent will receive or how to interpret the result.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema covers all of them (vacuously at 100%). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters; the description adds no parameter-specific details because none are needed.

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 states a specific verb ('Enumerate'), a specific resource ('all currently-active tunnels in the q-ring server'), and the exact data returned ('remaining read budget and time-to-live'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like tunnel_read by explicitly noting 'values are never included in the output', making its purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear usage contexts: 'Use to audit what is still in memory or to look up an ID you forgot.' It also implicitly warns against using this for value retrieval ('values are never included'), but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool like tunnel_read. This is clear context without a formal when-not-to-use list.

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