List log stream configs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it discloses that a single call returns both audit and network config types, which is a behavioral fact an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and scope, then the subtype disclosure. The final sentence about external destinations (Axiom, Datadog, Splunk) is partially tangential to calling the tool, keeping it short of a 5.

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 parameterless read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: what is listed, its scope, and the two config categories returned. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies an unfiltered full-list call and introduces no parameter assumptions that need reconciling with the empty 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (log streaming configurations) with explicit scope: 'all' configs for the tailnet, and it names both subtypes it returns ('configuration'/audit and 'network'/flow). This distinguishes it from the singular sibling tailscale_get_log_stream_config, which returns one config type.

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?

Usage is implied by 'List all ... for your tailnet,' which signals the enumeration case, but the description never states when to use this over tailscale_get_log_stream_config or the set/delete siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The alternative tool is left to inference.

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