get_tunnels_for_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns data about 'currently running tunnels' and clarifies the 'tunnel' context, but lacks critical behavioral details: authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what specific information is returned beyond 'Tunnel IDs or Tunnels Info'. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 reasonably concise at three sentences, but has structural issues. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the second sentence about 'tunnel' context could be integrated more smoothly. The third sentence incorrectly mentions a non-existent 'filter' parameter, wasting space and creating confusion. Overall, it's front-loaded but contains misleading information.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and only one parameter, the description is moderately complete. It explains the basic purpose and user context adequately. However, it fails to address important behavioral aspects like authentication needs or response format details, and the incorrect parameter reference undermines completeness for a tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 description mentions one parameter ('username') and states it's required for authentication, adding semantic context beyond the schema's basic type information. However, it incorrectly references a 'filter' parameter that doesn't exist in the input schema, creating confusion. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description partially compensates but introduces inconsistency.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns Tunnel IDs or Tunnels Info for any currently running tunnels launched by or shared with the specified user.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('tunnels'), and scope ('for the specified user'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tunnel_information' or 'get_current_jobs_for_tunnel', which prevents a perfect 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 provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions the tool is for 'currently running tunnels' and clarifies what 'tunnel' means in this context, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_tunnel_information' or 'get_current_jobs_for_tunnel'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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