scl_list_addresses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description adds value by revealing that the tool flags duplicates (a diagnostic behavior beyond simple listing), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose output format, whether it's read-only, or whether validation failures affect exit status. Since the duplicate-flagging behavior is disclosed, this is a solid baseline.

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?

Two paragraphs; the first sentence is the core purpose, the second adds the diagnostic value proposition. No wasted words. Well front-loaded with the primary action. Could be slightly more compact but is appropriately sized.

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 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema. There are many sibling tools related to SCL inspection (scl_list_goose, scl_check_goose_bindings, scl_validate), so the description should clarify how this tool's address-focused scope differs. The description covers the listing and duplicate-flagging behaviors adequately but doesn't address relationship to sibling tools or expected output structure.

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% for the single 'path' parameter. The description does not explicitly explain what 'path' means (file path to SCL file presumably) beyond the context of listing addresses. However, there is only one parameter and its purpose is reasonably inferable from the tool name and description. The description could do more to clarify or confirm the path parameter's expected format.

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 action ('List IP addressing per IED access point') with a clear grouping dimension ('grouped by subnetwork'). It also mentions a secondary function: flagging duplicate IP addresses and duplicate GOOSE APPID/MAC values. This is clear and specific, though the purpose is somewhat split between listing and flagging. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the verb+resource is specific.

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 implies the tool is for inspecting IP addressing in SCL files but does not state when to use it vs. alternatives like scl_check_goose_bindings or scl_list_goose, which may also relate to GOOSE configuration. No explicit when-to-use or exclusions. The 'painful to diagnose on site' note provides some motivational context but not technical usage guidance.

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