List Ip Groups

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the bar is lower. The description adds that both IPv4 and IPv6 groups are covered, which is useful, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether the default ip_type='v4' limits results — the only non-obvious behavior an agent would want to know.

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 short, front-loaded phrase with no filler or redundancy. It is not under-specified so much as minimal — it earns its place but leaves obvious room to add a sentence of value.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and readOnlyHint covers safety. Still, for a list tool whose parameter is entirely undocumented, the definition leaves the agent guessing what an 'IP group' object is and how ip_type affects the result — just barely adequate.

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 ip_type parameter, whose only hint is its default 'v4'. The description's '(IPv4/IPv6)' reference loosely maps to that parameter's v4/v6 domain but never names the parameter or states the accepted values, so it only partially compensates.

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 gives a specific verb (列出) and resource (IP 地址分组) with an added scope note about IPv4/IPv6, and the name clearly distinguishes it from the sibling mutators add_ip_group and delete_ip_group. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the other list_*_groups siblings (MAC/domain/protocol/port groups beyond the resource noun itself).

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite (e.g. filter needed before add/delete). In a family of near-identically named group-listing tools, the agent gets no routing guidance at all.

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