get_network_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns metadata and entries, but lacks details on pagination, size limits, or authorization requirements, which may affect agent use for large lists.

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 extremely concise: one clear sentence followed by relevant example questions. No unnecessary words, and the structure is well-suited for quick agent comprehension.

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 (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete. It explains what is returned (metadata and entries). A minor gap is the lack of mention that the output schema provides the structure, but overall sufficient.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage for the unique_id parameter with a description. The tool description adds context by explaining the parameter's role in identifying the network list and giving example formats (e.g., 12345_BLOCKLIST), enhancing understanding beyond schema.

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 tool retrieves the full contents of a network list, including metadata and entries (IP, CIDR, country code), distinguishing it from sibling tool 'search_network_lists' which likely searches for lists.

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?

Example questions provide clear use cases (e.g., 'What IPs are in the blocklist?'), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention of alternatives beyond implicit differentiation.

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