phpipam.addresses.list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only restates the tool's purpose without adding details like pagination, ordering, permissions, or response format. The term 'list' implies a read operation, but no additional context is given.

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 single sentence is direct, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 is simple with one parameter, and the schema covers that parameter. However, with no output schema and no mention of response format or limitations (e.g., pagination for large subnets), the description is minimally adequate but leaves some context gaps.

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 100% ('Subnet ID'), and the description reinforces the meaning of subnetId by stating addresses are in a subnet. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all addresses in a subnet'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like addresses.get (single address) or search. It precisely states the action and scope.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool to list addresses belonging to a specific subnet. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., search or addresses.get) or any exclusions.

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