list_indexerproxy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds the exact GET endpoint, but gives no further behavioral context such as pagination, response shape, or authorization requirements; this is acceptable for a simple zero-parameter list endpoint.

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 two short lines: a one-sentence summary and the endpoint. Every element earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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, read-only list operation with an output schema available, the description plus endpoint is essentially sufficient. It could explicitly say 'list all IndexerProxies' to remove ambiguity, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The high schema coverage baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly mentions no arguments.

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 states a clear verb ('Read') plus the resource ('IndexerProxy') and the exact collection endpoint GET /api/v1/indexerproxy, so it is distinguishable from get_indexerproxy_by_id even though it doesn't explicitly say 'list all'. It could be more explicit about returning the set of all proxy configurations.

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 about when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_indexerproxy_by_id for a single proxy or list_indexerproxy_schema for schema details. The agent must infer from the endpoint that this lists all proxies.

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