middleware_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only enumeration plus advisory text, but never states that it makes no changes, whether project_id is required to get the active set, or whether 'how to enable' means guidance text or actual capability. Adequate but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the primary resource and then enumerates the facets returned. Nothing is redundant, though the final clause about enabling/registering could be split for readability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back. It sketches the categories (instances, hooks, active set, enable instructions) but is vague about structure and about what 'how to enable or register a custom one' actually returns, leaving an agent uncertain about the shape of results.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (name substring filter, optional project_id) are already documented. The description does not add format, matching semantics, or behavior when project_id is omitted, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (middleware instances from MiddleWareConstants) and enumerates what is reported: template hooks, active set, enable/register guidance. It is distinguishable from the write-side sibling middleware_add, though the 'how to enable or register a custom one' clause blurs a read tool with advisory content.

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?

No explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion. The mention of 'how to enable or register a custom one' implies this is the discovery step before middleware_add, but the agent must infer that relationship rather than being told.

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