mempalace_list_tunnels

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about 'tenant-scoped' and 'explicit' tunnels, but stops short of describing return behavior, pagination, or other nuances. This aligns with the baseline for well-annotated tools.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, providing all necessary information without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema present, rich annotations), the description is largely complete. It clearly states the operation and the optional filter. The main gap is lack of differentiation from sibling tunnel tools, but that is partially mitigated by the qualifiers 'tenant-scoped' and 'explicit.'

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 'wing' is fully described in the schema with 'Optional wing filter for either endpoint of listed tunnels.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score for high schema coverage (100%) applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tenant-scoped explicit tunnels'), clearly identifying what is being listed and its scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mempalace_find_tunnels or mempalace_follow_tunnels, so it misses the full 5 score.

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 usage by stating what the tool does, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the other tunnel-related sibling tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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