list_link_stations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It reveals the HTTP method (GET), the resource path, and the Fabric proxy indirection, which is useful. It does not mention pagination, permissions, or other runtime behavior, but the list operation is simple and the output schema exists.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The main action and endpoint come first, followed by the key parameter guidance. Every word adds value.

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 straightforward list endpoint with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: endpoint, proxy path, and host identifier formats. It could mention pagination or return summary, but the output schema likely covers returns, and the description is otherwise sufficient.

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 only defines host as a string with no description. The description fully compensates by explaining that host can be a console name, ID, or composite ID in MAC:numericId format. This is essential for correct invocation.

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 action 'List link stations on a Protect console' and includes the exact HTTP endpoint. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_link_station and update_link_station by being plural and read-oriented.

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 clear context: this operates on a Protect console and needs a host identifier. It also explains the supported host formats. It does not explicitly contrast with get_link_station or update_link_station, but the list-versus-single nature is clear enough.

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