ips_list

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

There are no annotations, so the desciption carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral binding: results are limited to IPs visible to the current reseller/admin, which adds context beyond the mere name. It does not discuss pagination, authentication, filtering behavior, or side effects, but 'List' reasonably implies read-only behavior and an output schema is present to describe the return shape.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, target, and scope immediately, making it easy for an agen to parse at a glance.

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 no-parameter list tool with an output schema, this description is largely sufficient: it names the action, resource, and visibility scope. It is slightly less than fully complete because it does not clarify how it relates to ipely named siblings such as ips_admin_list or ips_get, but the tool's low complexity limits the 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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so the description does not need to document parameter semantics. Baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and nothing in the schema or desciption creates confusion.

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 the action ('List') and resource ('IPs') and adds a scope qualifier ('visible to this reseller/admin'), so its purpose is immediately understandable. It is not just a restating of the tool name, but it does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings like ips_admin_list or ips_get.

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 phrase 'visible to this reseller/admin' implies when the tool should be used: when an IP listing scoped to the current reseller/admin is needed. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which of the many sibling IP-related tools (ips_get, ips_admin_list, csf_searc_ip) to choose instead.

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