List inbounds

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) already cover the safety profile, so the description adds value by disclosing the return contents (clients, protocol, port, traffic stats). This goes beyond annotation coverage and clarifies what the agent can expect from the result, without contradicting annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action ('List every inbound') then appends the specific return contents. No waste, no filler, every word contributes value.

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 strong annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it names the resource and the returned details. It doesn't mention pagination or ordering, but for a simple enumeration that is not a significant gap, given no output schema and no complexity.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema and description are trivially complete. No parameter documentation is needed; the baseline of 4 for no-param tools 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?

The description states a specific verb ('List'), the resource ('every inbound configured on the 3x-ui panel'), and the included content (clients, protocol, port, traffic stats). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_inbound (single resource) and list_clients (clients only) by its scope and 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?

Clear context is provided: use this to list all inbounds with their associated data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of explicitly routing the agent. The scope is unambiguous enough for most cases.

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