list_magic_transit_gre_tunnels

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'List' makes the read-only nature clear, but the description adds no details about pagination, response format, or auth requirements. It is adequate for a simple list operation, but not rich.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence says exactly what the tool does with no filler. Every word earns its place for a tool with a single parameter.

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 one-parameter list operation, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, the scope, and the action. It omits output/pagination details, but no output schema exists and the return type is reasonably inferable from 'List ... tunnels'.

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%: the only parameter, account_id, is already described ('The account ID'). The description's 'for an account' reinforces the parameter's meaning but adds no new semantic information.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('Magic Transit GRE tunnels'), and a scope ('for an account'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings such as list_magic_transit_ipsec_tunnels, list_magic_transit_routes, and get_magic_transit_gre_tunnel.

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 intended use is implied: call it when you need to enumerate all GRE tunnels belonging to an account. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, nor does it say when to prefer the singular get_magic_transit_gre_tunnel or related list endpoints.

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