rtpengine_show

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. Since it is a read-only command, the minimal description is insufficient to convey safety or performance implications.

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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is extremely brief; a bit more context (e.g., that it returns a list of instances with status) would improve completeness without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

The tool has an output schema (present but not shown). Given the description and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose. However, considering the complexity of RTPEngine, additional context about the output format might be beneficial.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the description does not need to add parameter-specific details. The baseline is 4, and the description adds no value but also does not detract.

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 clearly states the action 'Show' and the resource 'all RTPEngine instances and their current status.' It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like rtpengine_enable, rtpengine_reload, and rtpengine_sessions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that rtpengine_stats provides aggregated metrics or that rtpengine_instance_health checks individual instance health.

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