list_tunnels

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating the action. It is not contradictory but does not elaborate on behaviors like pagination or returned fields, which would be expected in the absence of an output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core functionality. It could mention return value structure or pagination, but for a list tool with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the current description is nearly complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for parameters. The tool description does not add new information beyond 'account' scope, which aligns with the account_id parameter. With high schema coverage, the description's lack of param-specific detail is acceptable (baseline 3).

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'), identifies the exact resource ('Cloudflare Tunnels (cloudflared)'), and specifies the scope ('in an account'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_tunnel' and other list operations.

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 states when to use the tool (to list tunnels) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. The sibling 'get_tunnel' implies a specific case, but the description does not guide users on choosing between them.

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