fail2ban_list_banned

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

No annotations provided; the description carries full burden. 'List all currently banned IPs' indicates a read-only operation. However, no additional behavioral traits are disclosed (e.g., rate limits, auth needs, or that it reflects current state). The presence of an output schema helps but is not part of the description.

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, clear sentence with zero redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise for a simple list tool.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, straightforward purpose) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidelines and parameter context, making it incomplete for an agent unfamiliar with fail2ban. Sibling tool count is high, but the tool is distinct enough.

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 fails to mention the single parameter 'jail' (with default 'opensips'), leaving the agent unaware of how to specify the jail name or that a default exists. The parameter name is obvious, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 specific verb+resource: 'List all currently banned IPs for a fail2ban jail.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like fail2ban_ban_ip (ban action), fail2ban_unban_ip (unban action), and fail2ban_jail_status (different purpose).

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 purpose is clear, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fail2ban_jail_status). The description implies usage when listing banned IPs, but no exclusions or context on scope (e.g., per-jail vs global).

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