get_load_balancer_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose useful traits: it lists all load balancers, includes VIP/status/listener information, supports pagination, and shows provisioning and operating status. The read-only nature is strongly implied by 'Retrieve', 'Lists', and 'Shows', though it is not explicitly declared as non-destructive.

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 front-loaded and organized into useful sections for capabilities and user requests. It is slightly repetitive in restating listing and detail behavior, but the examples and bullet structure earn their place.

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 read-only list tool with a rich input schema and an output schema, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly for listing and status inspection. The main remaining gap is sibling differentiation from get_load_balancer_details and listener-specific tools, but the core operation is well covered.

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 limit, offset, and include_all precisely. The description adds only general pagination context via limit/offset and does not mention include_all or add format details beyond the schema, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 that this tool retrieves a list of all OpenStack load balancers with detailed information, including VIP, status, and listeners. It is distinguishable as the list-all tool, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_load_balancer_details or subresource tools such as get_load_balancer_listeners.

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 'Use when user requests' section gives clear example phrases that map to listing and status-checking scenarios. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like get_load_balancer_details for a single load balancer or get_load_balancer_listeners for listener-specific queries.

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