List inbounds

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds scoping detail about what is included (configured inbound proxies, grouped by protocol) and that it is not raw JSON, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response size or potential filtering.

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 with no filler. The primary purpose and returned fields are upfront, and the alternative tool is mentioned in the second sentence without distracting from the main definition.

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 parameterless read-only list operation with annotations, an output schema, and a clear sibling alternative, the description is fully sufficient. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema has no parameter semantics to document. The description instead clarifies the shape and scope of the returned data, which is useful context and matches the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 names the specific verb 'Lists' and a precise resource ('configured inbound proxies'), then details the returned fields (tag, network, TLS mode, port) and grouping by protocol. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the raw Xray inbound JSON returned by marzban_config_get.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use this tool versus the alternative: use this for a structured summary, use marzban_config_get with section 'inbounds' when raw Xray JSON is needed. This explicit routing removes ambiguity for the agent.

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