List Ip Speed Limits

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declared, the safety profile is covered by annotations, but the description adds no behavioral context of its own — no scoping, no mention that limits are IP-based rules applied to a router, nothing beyond the name. It neither contradicts nor enriches the structured data.

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 phrase with zero filler, appropriate for a zero-parameter list operation. It is terse but not padded, though it is almost too thin to be considered well-structured documentation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and there are no parameters to document. For a simple read-only list this is minimally viable, but the description gives no indication of what an IP speed limit rule is or the scope of the listing, leaving a small gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there are no parameter semantics to describe and the schema fully covers the empty input.

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?

States a specific verb ('列出'/list) and resource ('IP 限速规则'/IP speed limit rules), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related siblings list_mac_speed_limits or the add/delete_ip_speed_limit tools.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as list_mac_speed_limits or get_terminal_independent_speed_limits. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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