List IP addresses

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline — no pagination behavior, no note that results are capped, no indication of per-device scoping — so it neither informs nor contradicts.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Nothing is wasted, though the brevity contributes to the gaps in the other dimensions.

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 four-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers the core purpose but leaves the interface filter and IPv6 toggle unexplained and says nothing about result limits or device defaulting. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 50%: 'limit' and 'device' are documented in the schema, while 'ipv6' and 'interface' are not. The parenthetical '(or IPv6)' hints at the ipv6 toggle but never explains its boolean semantics, and the 'interface' filter is not described at all, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('IPv4/IPv6 addresses assigned to interfaces'), which is clearer than the bare title. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as mikrotik_interfaces or mikrotik_address_list, so an agent must infer which listing tool to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus mikrotik_interfaces, mikrotik_address_list, or mikrotik_print, and no mention of prerequisites or filtering scenarios. The only implicit guidance is that it is a read/listing operation.

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