get_load_balancer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the tool as read-only ('get') and mentions the output includes members, but does not discuss authorization needs, error handling, or side effects. A score of 3 reflects adequate but incomplete disclosure.

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 consists of two concise sentences: one stating the core functionality and another providing usage context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple get tool, the description covers the key aspects: what it retrieves (load balancer with members) and when to use it. No output schema exists, so it might benefit from detailing the output structure, but the description is sufficient in context of its simplicity.

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% with the parameter 'id' described as 'Resource id from the matching list_* tool.' The tool description reinforces this by referencing list_load_balancers, adding slight clarity. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 'Get one load balancer with its members (backend VMs and ports).' It specifies the verb 'get', the resource 'one load balancer', and the scope 'with its members', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_load_balancers or list_load_balancer_members.

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 explicitly says 'Use after list_load_balancers to inspect membership.' This provides clear context on when to use the tool, though it could explicitly state when not to use it, such as for listing multiple load balancers.

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