address_lists

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

The description states that the tool lists contents, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly declare its read-only nature, required permissions, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description could be more transparent about behavioral traits.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, conveying the essential purpose efficiently.

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 no output schema, parameters, or annotations, the description provides basic context but lacks details on output format (e.g., whether it returns list names, entries, or both). It also does not mention read-only behavior, which would aid completeness.

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, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description adds no confusion.

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 indicates that the tool lists the contents of all firewall address-lists, which are IP groups used in firewall rules. The verb 'Isi' (contents) clarifies it's a listing operation, distinguishing it from add/remove sibling tools, though it could specify whether it returns list names, entries, or both.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_address_list_entry or remove_address_list_entry. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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