List tunnels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the scope ('in this manager') and the exact fields returned, which is important since there is no output schema. It does not mention pagination or size limits, but for a simple list tool this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides compact routing guidance to the sibling tool.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers what it lists, the fields returned, and the alternative for single-tunnel inspection. Combined with annotations that establish read-only behavior, nothing essential is missing.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details that don't exist.

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 resource (all active tunnels in this manager), and enumerates the returned fields (ports, labels, public URLs, uptime, state, last error). It also differentiates from the sibling tunnel_status by naming it explicitly for single-tunnel inspection.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use list_tunnels to list all active tunnels, and use tunnel_status for a single tunnel. The alternative and condition are named directly, leaving no ambiguity about which sibling tool to choose.

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