list_ip_speed_limits

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already discloses this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of pagination, result size, ordering, or any caveats. Since the description provides no additional transparency beyond the annotation, it falls short of the 'credit for adding context' standard.

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 a single, compact sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently states the tool's function without any fluff, earning every character it uses. This is ideal for a simple no-parameter list operation.

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 low complexity (no parameters, read-only, output schema exists), the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks any context about what IP speed limit rules are, how they relate to other speed-limit tools, or any specific usage scenarios. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, but a brief note on when to use this versus list_mac_speed_limits would improve completeness.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics because none exist. It correctly reports the function without unnecessary detail.

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 simply states 'List IP speed limit rules' (列出 IP 限速规则), which is a specific verb+resource action. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_mac_speed_limits (which lists MAC speed limits) and add_ip_speed_limit/delete_ip_speed_limit (which modify rules). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage (when you need to view IP speed limits) but does not mention exclusions or contrast with related tools such as list_mac_speed_limits. For a simple read-only list tool, this implied usage is minimally adequate but lacks explicit context.

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