load_balancers_list_backends

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the tool lists backends, but does not specify whether it is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, or any other behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, default sorting). The output schema exists but is not described.

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, concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. While succinct, it does not include any unnecessary words, but it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 simple list operation with two parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about the output structure, potential filters, or any constraints. The context signals indicate moderate complexity, so a slightly richer description would improve completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats the tool's action. The parameters (lb_id, zone) are documented in the schema, and the description offers no additional context or examples.

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 that the tool lists backends of a load balancer. While it closely mirrors the tool name, it effectively communicates the verb (list) and resource (backends). The sibling tools include other load balancer list operations (e.g., list_frontends, list_lbs), so the description implicitly distinguishes by focusing on backends.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description only states what it does, leaving it to the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters.

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