list_relays

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

Annotations are absent, so the description itself must disclose behavior. It does reveal that the operation is a GET via Fabric proxy, which implies a read-only network call. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, pagination, or any other behavioral traits that could affect invocation.

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 no filler: the first states the purpose and endpoint, the second defines the parameter format. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

With a single required parameter, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It supplies the endpoint, proxy context, and host semantics. What is missing is minor—such as explicit read-only or pagination notes—but the output schema covers return details.

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 schema only defines 'host' as a plain string with 0% description coverage. The description compensates well by explaining that host can be a console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format), giving the agent actionable semantics for the only parameter.

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 relays') and scope ('on a Protect console'), and further specifies the endpoint (GET /v1/relays via Fabric proxy). The use of 'list' plus the plural 'relays' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_relay or update_relay.

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 tool lists relays on a Protect console using a Fabric proxy. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the list vs. get/update semantics among siblings make the usage context reasonably clear.

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