inbounds_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating returned fields and explaining the full=true variant, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or how inbounds are aggregated across profiles.

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?

A single tight sentence: the list scope and returned fields are front-loaded, followed by the parameter behavior. Zero filler.

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 read-only list with annotations, one fully documented parameter, and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. Minor gaps remain around whether disabled profiles are included and how duplicate tags across profiles are handled.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single parameter is already documented ('Return the raw panel response, including rawInbound'). The description's 'adds the raw xray inbound objects' restates this in slightly different terms with marginal added meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (inbounds) plus a scope that differentiates it: 'of all config profiles'. It also enumerates the returned fields (tag, type, port, squads). It does not name the near-sibling config_profiles_get_inbounds explicitly, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 'all config profiles' scope implies when this is appropriate versus a per-profile lookup, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative is named. Guidance is inferable rather than stated.

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