cf_tunnels_list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and an output schema covers the return shape. However, it says nothing about permissions, pagination, rate limits, or whether the default result includes or excludes deleted tunnels.

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 tightly written sentence that front-loads the operation and resource. Every clause earns its place by clarifying what the tool returns; there is no filler.

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 simple one-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and returned fields adequately. It falls short on the undocumented is_deleted parameter and any usage context, leaving meaningful gaps despite the low 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 single parameter is_deleted has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it never mentions the parameter or its effect. An agent cannot tell from the description what is_deleted=false (the default) actually filters out.

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) and resource (Cloudflare Zero Trust Tunnels / cloudflared connectors), and even enumerates the returned fields (active status, tunnel id, connectors, configuration). It does not need to differentiate from siblings because no other tunnel-listing tool exists in the sibling set, but it never states scope (all vs. filtered) explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no named alternative. The sibling list contains no other tunnel tool, so an alternative may not exist, but the definition still gives the agent nothing about appropriate context or prerequisites.

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