list_loadbalancers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scoping constraint to a data center, which is useful, but does not disclose any additional behavioral aspects such as pagination. With the annotation covering safety, the description contributes limited extra transparency.

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 entire description is a single, six-word sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and noun. No words are wasted, and it effectively communicates the tool's purpose.

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 straightforward list operation with only three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential scoping to a data center. It could potentially mention that datacenter_id is required, but that is already captured in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters documented. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, maintaining the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('load balancers'), and scopes it to 'in a data center', clearly distinguishing it from sibling list tools. The scope also hints at the required datacenter_id dependency.

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 when to use this tool (to list load balancers within a data center) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer alternatives like list_application_loadbalancers or get_loadbalancer. There is no mention of exclusions or fallback behavior, matching the 'implied usage' level.

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