hcloud_list_load_balancers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of result scoping by region, pagination/limit behavior, or what happens when the region has no load balancers. For a read tool the bar is lower, but zero added context earns a 2.

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 four-word phrase contains no filler and is inherently front-loaded, so there is nothing to trim. But its brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency — the sentence is too thin to convey scope or behavior, which places it below a well-sized one-liner.

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?

There is no output schema and no return-value description, and the required region scoping plus limit-based pagination go unmentioned, so an agent cannot tell how results are bounded or what a result item looks like. For a list tool with a required parameter and no output schema, more explanation is warranted.

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 both 'region' (required) and 'limit' documented in the schema, so the description does not need to restate them. However, it adds no meaning beyond the schema — e.g. whether the list is scoped to the required region or whether 'limit' truncates silently. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 pairs a specific verb (List) with a specific resource (ELB load balancers), so an agent immediately knows this is a collection-enumeration call for elastic load balancers. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as hcloud_show_load_balancer or hcloud_list_listeners, but the core purpose is 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — nothing says to call this before hcloud_show_load_balancer to discover IDs, nor any prerequisite about having a region/project context. The only usage signal an agent gets is the tool name itself, which is not misleading but also not helpful.

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