panelica_security_get_v1_security_blocked_ips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'List blocked IPs' without disclosing behavior such as pagination, filtering, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The response format is also not mentioned. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 very concise: two lines including the HTTP method and category. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured, but given the simplicity, it earns a high score for being efficient and direct.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description should at least mention what the output looks like (e.g., a list of IP addresses) or any limitations. It lacks this context, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand what to expect.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra information about parameters, but none are needed. According to the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents everything.

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 'List blocked IPs', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'panelica_security_get_v1_security_firewall_rules' or 'panelica_security_get_v1_security_login_history', which also list security-related items. The title and category provide some context but no explicit distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., post or delete blocked IPs). There is no mention of prerequisites, filters, or context. It only states the HTTP method and category, which are not sufficient for usage guidance.

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