List IP Addresses

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), lowering the bar, and the description still adds real value: address entries include dynamic ones originating from DHCP client and PPP, which is a behavioral trait not visible in the schema. It does not mention auth/permission requirements or result-size characteristics, but the dynamic-inclusion note is genuinely informative.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and followed by scoping and pagination details; every clause carries information. Minor room to be tighter, but nothing is padding.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers resource scope, dynamic-address inclusion, available filters, and pagination. The main residual gap is what a returned record actually contains, which is not described, though the annotations and full schema coverage keep this from being a serious omission.

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 all five parameters (limit, offset, disabled, routerId, interface) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the interface and disabled filters and pagination at a high level without adding format, syntax, or default behavior beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (IPv4 addresses assigned to interfaces on a MikroTik router), plus a distinguishing scope detail: dynamic addresses from DHCP client and PPP are included. That is clear and non-tautological, but it never names or contrasts with siblings like list_interfaces, list_dhcp_leases, or manage_ip_address, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 enumerates capabilities ('supports filtering by interface and disabled state, with pagination') but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of when to prefer this over list_interfaces or manage_ip_address. Filtering capabilities describe the tool, not when to select it.

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