List address objects

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so description adds no new safety information. The description confirms it lists 'all' objects and gives example names, but does not disclose additional behaviors like pagination, performance, or return format. With annotations covering the read-only nature, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the key action and example usage front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose; no filler or redundancy.

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 list-all tool with no input parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states the scope ('all'), the resource type, and provides examples. The only minor gap is the ambiguity of 'just names'—does it return only names or full objects with names? But overall sufficient.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema already covers all inputs. The description adds no parameter information (none needed). According to the rubric, with 0 parameters, baseline is 4. No additional value is necessary.

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?

Description clearly states 'List all firewall address objects' with specific context of single IPs/subnets. Distinguishes from sibling tools like 'fortigate_get_address' and 'fortigate_list_address_groups' by focusing on listing all objects rather than a single or groups. The example object names reinforce the resource type.

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 a use case ('useful for finding objects like ip068, ip080') but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like fortigate_get_address for a specific object or fortigate_list_address_groups for groups. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given, so guidance is only implicit.

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