tcp_proxy_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a listing operation ('List all TCP proxies'), implying it's read-only and non-destructive, which is appropriate. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral details like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first line. Each subsequent section ('Best for', 'Prerequisites', 'Next steps', 'Related') adds value without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 does well by covering purpose, usage guidelines, and relationships. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., format of listed proxies) and behavioral aspects like error handling, which would improve completeness for a tool with no structured output documentation.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (environmentId and serviceId). The description adds context by mentioning 'environment' and 'service', but doesn't provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema offers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('List all TCP proxies'), resource ('for a service in a specific environment'), and scope ('all TCP proxies'). It distinguishes from siblings like tcp_proxy_create (creation) and tcp_proxy_delete (deletion) by focusing on listing operations.

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 explicit guidance with 'Best for' scenarios (viewing configurations, managing access, auditing endpoints), prerequisites (service_list), next steps (tcp_proxy_create), and related tools (domain_list, service_info). This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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