Правила балансировщика

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

The description says 'Returns a list', which is a read-only operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint: false. This is a direct contradiction: the annotation suggests the tool may modify state, while the description clearly indicates it only reads. No additional behavioral context is provided beyond this conflict.

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 action ('Returns a list') and provides a necessary definition of what the rules are. No wasted words, perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool returns. However, the contradiction with the readOnlyHint annotation undermines overall completeness, and the description does not mention that a balancer_id is required (though the schema covers that). It is functional but has clear gaps.

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 fully describes the single parameter balancer_id with a clear 'mandatory field' note. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about parameters, so it contributes nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since schema coverage is 100%.

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 clearly states it returns a list of balancer rules and explicitly defines what a rule is (mappings between balancer port and backend server port). This specific verb+resource makes the purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from siblings like list_balancers or list_balancer_ips.

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: when you need to see balancer rules, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as list_balancers or list_balancer_ips, and provides no exclusions or alternative guidance.

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