list_load_balancers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all load balancers' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the results come in, whether there's pagination, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the essential information and earns its place as the minimum viable description for this simple operation.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a listing tool. It doesn't explain what information is returned about load balancers, whether results are filtered or paginated, or any error conditions. While the tool is simple, the description leaves too many behavioral questions unanswered.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which aligns with the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with zero parameters that don't need parameter documentation.

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 'List all load balancers' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('load balancers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_load_balancer_types', but the specificity of 'load balancers' versus 'load balancer types' provides implicit distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_pricing' or 'list_load_balancer_types', there's no indication of when this listing tool is appropriate versus other list operations or how it relates to creation/deletion tools for load balancers.

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