list_magic_transit_ipsec_tunnels

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a list/read operation, but it does not mention pagination, response shape, ordering, or any other behavioral traits an agent would need to know before calling.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action 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?

The tool is simple with one fully documented parameter, so the description is minimally viable. However, there is no output schema and no mention of pagination or response format, which leaves a gap for a list-operation tool.

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 schema already documents the single required account_id parameter with 100% coverage. The description's phrase 'for an account' aligns with that parameter but adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: 'List Magic Transit IPsec tunnels for an account.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_magic_transit_ipsec_tunnel (singular fetch) and list_magic_transit_gre_tunnels (different tunnel type).

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_magic_transit_ipsec_tunnel for a single tunnel or list_magic_transit_gre_tunnels for GRE tunnels. The verb 'List' implies collection retrieval, but the description does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives.

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