Sigma List Allowed Ips

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about org scope and version, but does not disclose pagination behavior or other details. With annotations providing the core safety information, this is adequate but not rich.

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 zero extraneous words. It states the action, resource, scope, and version efficiently, with no repetition of information already in the annotations or schema.

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 the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema (which covers return structure), and annotations that declare safety, the description is mostly complete. It lacks explicit mention of pagination behavior, but that is implied by the parameters and the list operation. The description covers the essential context needed to invoke the tool.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It does not mention page_size or page_token at all. While these pagination parameter names are intuitive, the description offers no explicit guidance on their function or usage, failing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('IP allowlist entries') for the organization, and includes the version ('v3alpha'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like sigma_add_allowed_ips and sigma_remove_allowed_ips by focusing on listing, leaving no ambiguity about the operation.

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 clearly implies a read-only operation for retrieving allowlist entries, which differentiates it from the add/remove siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention that add/remove should be used for modifications, leaving some inference to the agent.

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