caddy_upstreams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond annotations by explicitly listing the output fields (address, active requests, failure counts), which is the primary behavioral detail for a status tool. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context about what the agent will receive.

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 two sentences, immediately stating the action and resource, then enumerating the returned data. Every word is functional with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with 'Get the current health status' and remains compact.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema, strong annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and what it returns. It lists the three key fields, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output. However, it does not specify the exact response format or how health status is determined, leaving minor ambiguity for a tool with no output schema.

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 is empty with 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly makes no mention of parameters, as none exist. It neither adds nor needs to add parameter semantics since there is nothing to document.

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 tool's specific function: getting current health status of reverse proxy upstreams. It lists the exact data shown (address, active requests, failure counts), distinguishing it from sibling tools like caddy_status (overall Caddy status) and caddy_reverse_proxy (likely configuration). The verb 'Get' plus the specific resource makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (when you need upstream health information) but provides no explicit guidance on alternative tools or exclusions. It does not mention when not to use it or how it compares to caddy_status or caddy_metrics, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the purpose statement alone.

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