apisix_list_upstreams

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic query operation. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not disclose any additional traits such as pagination behavior or projection semantics.

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 short sentence, which is concise. However, it merely restates the title and adds no substantive information, so it doesn't fully earn its place. It is not overlong, but it could be more informative while staying 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 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention pagination, return format, or any behaviors beyond 'query list'. The schema covers parameters, but since there is no output schema, the description should provide some indication of the response structure. This is a clear gap.

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 itself provides no parameter-specific information, but the schema fully documents page, detail, fields, and page_size with default values and constraints.

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 '查询上游列表' clearly specifies the action (query) and resource (upstream list). It distinguishes the tool from get_upstream by indicating list semantics and from other resource-specific list tools by naming the resource. However, it is effectively a restatement of the tool name and title, lacking additional qualifiers or scope details that would fully differentiate it from sibling list tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. The sibling tool names appear only in the context signals, not in the description itself.

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