unified_backends

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It says it returns backends and capability summaries, but it doesn't specify what 'known' means (e.g., static list, dynamic discovery), whether it involves network calls, or what the output structure is. It is not misleading, but it is under-transparent.

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 one sentence, front-loaded, and wastes no words. It achieves conciseness without under-specification (though room remains for more detail).

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a high-level purpose but lacks details like the format of 'capability summaries' or whether the result is a list or map. It is adequate for simple discovery but leaves meaningful questions for an agent.

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?

With 0 parameters, there is no additional meaning to provide. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the purpose. It exceeds because it clarifies the output includes capability summaries, which is useful.

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 the tool returns known backends and their capabilities, which is clear and specific. It could be improved by distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'unified_status' or 'unified_active_backend', but it stands on its own.

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 implies usage for discovering backends, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist for status and active backend, but no guidance is given on when to prefer this one.

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