list_ip_hosts

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

The description states it lists 'all' IP host objects, which is transparent about the scope. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it adequately discloses the operation's read-only nature and full retrieval, though it lacks details on pagination or result limits.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource, no wasted words. Every part of the description 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, the description is fully complete. It clearly defines the tool's purpose and the exact set of objects it returns, leaving no ambiguity for a simple list operation.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the types of objects included (addresses, networks, ranges), going beyond the empty schema. This enriches the meaning and helps the agent understand what the list contains.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('IP host objects'), further specifying that these include addresses, networks, and ranges. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_ip_host_groups and list_fqdn_hosts.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_ip_hosts. The description implies it lists all objects, but does not clarify when to prefer a list over a search, or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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