List trunk IP ACL entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, fully covering safety. The description adds the specific purpose and error codes but no new behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict 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 two sentences plus a compact error list. It is front-loaded with core functionality and use cases. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify the return format. It mentions ip_id from entries but does not describe the structure (e.g., fields like ip, ip_id, etc.). Coverage is adequate but not complete for full agent understanding.

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 high (100% for trunk_id). The description adds no extra parameter information beyond the schema's description. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'IP ACL entries for an owned trunk'. It provides two specific use cases: auditing source IPs and finding an ip_id for update/delete operations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like trunk_add_ip_acl and trunk_delete_ip_acl.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (to audit source IPs or find an ip_id). It implicitly excludes modifications (use trunk_add_ip_acl, trunk_update_ip_acl, trunk_delete_ip_acl). Error codes provide context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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