csf_ip_reason

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the implementation ('Parses csf -g via the plugin'), shows a typical output comment, and notes that the output is safe to show an operator. It doesn't explicitly state it is read-only, but the purpose and parse wording make that clear.

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 with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the purpose, the safety note, the parsing method, the output example, and the sibling guidance. 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 one-parameter read-only lookup tool, this is complete. It states what the tool returns, gives a representative comment, references the output schema implicitly, and directs the agent to alternatives when broader context is needed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by documenting 'ip: IPv4 or IPv6', adding format and version constraints that the schema lacks. This is sufficient for the single required parameter.

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 opens with a specific question and resource: 'Why CSF/LFD listed this IP'. It distinguishes itself from csf_search_ip by focusing on the reason/comment, and from bfm_ip_reason by clarifying it covers CSF/LFD. The example comment makes the output concrete.

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?

It explicitly says to pair with bfm_ip_reason or use ip_block_reason when both CSF/LFD and BFM reasons plus customer text are needed. This gives an agent a clear decision rule between sibling tools.

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