arvan_list_log_forwarders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination, rate limits, or side effects). It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal value beyond them.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key action and resource. No filler or redundant information.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, but the description lacks any hint about the return value structure (e.g., 'returns a list of log forwarder objects'). Given no output schema, the description should at least mention what the list contains.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the 'domain' parameter. The description only mentions 'for a domain' without clarifying whether it expects a domain name, ID, or other identifier. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly provide the parameter.

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 specific verb 'List' and a clear resource 'log-forwarding destinations for a domain'. Among sibling tools like arvan_create_log_forwarder and arvan_delete_log_forwarder, it unambiguously identifies this tool as the read-only listing operation.

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 implies usage for viewing existing log forwarders but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like creating or deleting forwarders. No exclusions or context are given.

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