bfm_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does reveal a non-obvious behavior: blocked_only is only a 'Hint for the client; the panel still returns the full JSON.' This tells the agent not to expect server-side filtering. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or result shape, but the output schema covers return structure.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then sibling differentiation, then parameter detail. Every sentence provides value and there is no 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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what the tool lists, how to get single-IP detail, and what the blocked_only parameter actually does. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains the single boolean parameter by stating it is a client-side hint and that the full JSON is always returned, which is meaningful beyond the schema's bare 'default: true'.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List Brute Force Monitor state', and clarifies the content with examples '(blocked IPs, failed logins)'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling bfm_ip_reason by pointing to the single-IP 'why was this blocked' view, so an agent can select correctly.

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 explicitly directs one-IP lookups to bfm_ip_reason, which is a clear alternative and condition. It does not enumerate all other related siblings like bfm_unblock_ip or bfm_skip_ip, but for the core listing purpose it gives the necessary routing guidance.

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