timeweb_list_balancers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only list operation but does not disclose whether 'all' means all pages or just the first page, nor does it mention default limits or return format. The schema hints at pagination via limit/offset, but the description itself adds no extra behavioral context.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word is necessary, with zero repetition or filler, making it maximally concise.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't explain what fields are returned or whether pagination is automatic, but given the low complexity and strong schema coverage, it is not severely lacking. Still, some detail about the return payload 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%, and every parameter (limit, format, offset) already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource ('load balancers') and scope ('in the account'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like timeweb_get_balancer (single balancer), timeweb_create_balancer, and timeweb_list_balancer_rules, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 load balancers, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide criteria for when to choose this over timeweb_get_balancer or other list tools. This leaves room for interpretation, though the naming naturally suggests it for overview purposes.

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