list_alb_forwarding_rules

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, so the description doesn't need to state safety. However, the description adds no behavioral details like pagination, large result sets, or that filters can cause empty results (though filters are in schema). The description is silent on any limitations, but annotations cover the main safety aspect.

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 sentence, clear and front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words.

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 is a simple list operation with read-only annotation and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient. However, there is no output schema, so the description could mention that it returns a list of forwarding rules, but that's implied. The tool has a sibling for NLB forwarding rules, and the description doesn't add differentiation.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including the crucial filter behavior note. The description itself doesn't add parameter details beyond 'all forwarding rules', but the schema's rich descriptions (e.g., filter retry advice) satisfy the need. Description adds little new semantic value.

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 the tool lists all forwarding rules for a specific application load balancer, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from get_application_loadbalancer (which gets the balancer itself) but is less differentiated from list_nlb_forwarding_rules (but the 'application load balancer' term suggests difference).

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies use when you need all forwarding rules of an ALB, but doesn't mention alternatives like get_application_loadbalancer for details or filtering options. The sibling list_nlb_forwarding_rules is not addressed.

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