List Proxy Hosts

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

With no annotations, this description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: it declares the operation is non-mutating ('does not change NPM or request a certificate'), effectively a read-only hint. It also sketches the return payload, though it omits pagination/rate-limit behavior for what could be a large list.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage/routing, and non-goals/returns. Front-loaded with the core verb+resource so an agent grasps it immediately.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, and safety. Return-value detail is partly redundant given the output schema, and pagination/volume behavior is unaddressed, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 4 baseline applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 ('List proxy hosts configured in NPM') plus the scope of returned data ('including their current status'). This clearly separates it from get_proxy_host (single), create_proxy_host, and the other list_* siblings for certificates/access lists/streams.

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?

Explicitly gives the primary use case: 'find host IDs before get, update, enable, disable, or delete operations', which names the downstream siblings that depend on this output. It also excludes non-goals ('does not change NPM or request a certificate'), though it never names an alternative list tool or when NOT to use this one.

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