get_tunnels_for_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states what it returns. It lacks information on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. The mention of a non-existent filter parameter further reduces transparency.

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 front-loaded with purpose but includes a code-style param documentation block that is awkward and unnecessary. It could be more concise by removing the redundant param documentation and focusing on succinct instructions.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description fails to provide complete context. It mentions an optional filter that isn't in the schema, and does not explain the output or any usage constraints. The output schema likely covers return values, but the description is still inadequate.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It describes the username parameter as required and for authentication, but introduces a 'filter' parameter that does not exist in the schema, causing confusion. This adds minimal value and misleads.

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 returns tunnel IDs or info for tunnels launched by or shared with a user, and clarifies 'tunnel' refers to Sauce Connect. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_tunnel_information or get_current_jobs_for_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 description mentions an optional 'filter' parameter that is not present in the input schema, which is misleading. It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or context for use.

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