get_load_balancer_amphorae

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only implies a read via the verb 'Get'. It says nothing about permissions/scope required, whether the result includes amphora health or status, or behavior when the LB has no amphorae; only the output schema partially compensates.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Minor redundancy between 'amphora instances' and 'all amphorae', but nothing wasteful.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is barely sufficient: return contents are covered by the output schema, but with no annotations the description should at least confirm the operation is read-only and note what permissions or LB state it depends on.

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% and the single optional parameter already documents the empty-string-means-all behavior. The description merely restates that dual mode and adds no format hints (name vs. UUID, required prefix) beyond the 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 and resource ('Get amphora instances') and covers both scopes: for a named load balancer or all amphorae. It is distinguishable from the many get_load_balancer_* siblings because amphorae is a distinct resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with get_load_balancer_details or get_load_balancer_list.

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 'or all amphorae' clause implies the two usage modes and the schema makes the empty-string case explicit, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling load balancer tools or any stated prerequisites (e.g., requiring an LB ID from get_load_balancer_list).

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