List Kong upstreams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the returned field set and the negative disclosure that targets and health data are absent, which prevents a wasted follow-up call.

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?

Four labeled blocks (core statement, USE WHEN, RETURNS, LIMITATIONS) with no filler sentences. The purpose is front-loaded in the first line and each subsequent line carries distinct information.

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?

No output schema exists, yet RETURNS enumerates the exact fields the caller receives, and LIMITATIONS covers the main failure of expectation for this tool type. Everything needed to select and call it correctly is present.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented in the schema with its default and bounds. The description adds nothing about pagination or limit behavior, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the upstreams') and immediately clarifies the domain term with '(load-balanced backend pools) configured in Kong'. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling check_upstream_health, which the LIMITATIONS section names explicitly.

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?

'USE WHEN' gives two concrete triggers: resolving which upstream a service name maps to, and finding which upstreams have health checking configured. LIMITATIONS routes the agent to check_upstream_health for single-upstream health, so the alternative is explicit rather than inferred.

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