list_phj_services

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the return content format (rule fields) but omits other behavioral details such as read-only nature, pagination, or authorization requirements. It adds minimal context beyond what the schema implies.

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 sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the action 'List port-hijack rules'. Every word contributes value with no repetition or filler.

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 no parameters and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and what a port-hijack rule is. An output schema exists, so return value details are not required. The description could further clarify the tool's read-only nature but is largely complete.

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?

There are zero parameters; the schema coverage is 100% as there is nothing to document. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4 per guidelines.

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 lists port-hijack rules and defines the rule format (redirects public_port → proxy_port on ip_dst), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like add_phj_service or delete_phj_service.

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 implies usage for listing all rules, but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_phj_service for a single rule. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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