list_application_loadbalancers

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

No annotations provided. Description only states it lists ALBs in a data center but omits behavioral traits: pagination, read-only nature, error handling, or rate limits. For a listing operation, common expectations (e.g., sorting, filtering behavior) are not addressed.

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?

Single sentence, 8 words, no redundant information. Front-loaded with verb and resource.

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 list operation, core action is clear. However, no description of return format, pagination behavior, or result set size limits. Output schema absent, so description should compensate but does not. Adequate but with 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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 3 parameters (datacenter_id, depth, filters). Description adds context that listing is per data center, but adds no new meaning for depth or filters beyond schema. Baseline 3 since schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'List', resource 'application load balancers (ALB)', and scope 'in a data center'. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_loadbalancers' (classic) and 'get_application_loadbalancer' (single).

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?

Implies usage requires a datacenter_id but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs siblings (e.g., singular get vs list for ALBs, or classic vs ALB). Context from sibling names helps but description lacks explicit alternatives.

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