hcloud_list_l7_policies

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

The annotations already establish a read-only, idempotent, open-world operation, while the description adds the ELB URL-routing scope. It does not disclose pagination or truncation behavior, or whether omitting listener_id returns all policies in the region.

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 front-loaded phrase with no redundant wording. It communicates the operation and resource efficiently without unnecessary implementation detail.

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 three-parameter read-only list tool, the description and fully documented schema are sufficient for a basic invocation. Nevertheless, the absence of result-scope and pagination context, combined with no output schema, leaves some uncertainty about broader or truncated responses.

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 limit, region, and listener_id each documented, so the baseline score applies. The description adds no further parameter formats, defaults, or explanation of how the filters interact.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: "List ELB URL-based routing policies." Expanding L7 into ELB URL-based routing makes the resource understandable, but it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from related listener, load-balancer, or other policy-listing siblings.

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 for agents that need to inspect ELB URL-routing policies, and the schema suggests optional listener-specific filtering. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives for related ELB resources.

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