Get proxy hosts

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description goes beyond this by explaining the grouping behavior and, importantly, that unknown template tokens are flagged rather than causing an error because Marzban leaves them un-substituted. This gives an agent useful insight into output semantics that annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two sentences carry all the essential information without redundancy. The core listing behavior is front-loaded, and the secondary token-flagging behavior is added in a compact, useful second sentence.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema available, the description is complete. It explains what is returned, how results are grouped, and what the notable edge-case behavior is. There are no outstanding gaps an agent would need filled to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies here: the description appropriately focuses on the returned data and behavior rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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 ('Lists'), a concrete resource ('proxy host settings'), and a distinguishing organizing principle ('grouped by inbound tag'). It also adds a second specific behavior (flagging unknown `{VARIABLE}` tokens) that makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and separates it from generic config or inbound tools.

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 makes the tool's purpose clear, so an agent can infer it is the right choice for inspecting proxy host settings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or which sibling tools should be preferred for related concerns such as general config, inbound management, or node status.

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