list_backends

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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds value by indicating that the tool evaluates 'reachability,' which implies it may perform network probes or live checks rather than just returning stored configuration. This is a useful behavioral nuance beyond the annotation flags.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and object, then adds the relevant output dimensions. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with a readOnlyHint, a false destructiveHint, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what is listed and the key attributes returned. It could go slightly further by noting that this is the preferred way to enumerate backend status versus checking a single backend with ping, but the current coverage is strong.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The input schema is already complete with an empty properties object, giving a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters.

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') and a clear resource ('configured backends'), and it further specifies what is returned: reachability and capabilities. This is distinct from sibling tools like ping or get_balance and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 this is the go-to tool for an overview of configured backends and their state, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of related tools such as ping for reachability checks. No alternatives or exclusions are named, so guidance is only implied.

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