ip_params_dump

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that output comes from the saved .ioc rather than live state (so unsaved edits are invisible), but says nothing about read-only nature, return shape, or behavior when the project has never been saved.

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 sentence with zero padding, and the key qualifier (persisted/saved .ioc) is front-loaded rather than buried.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential source-of-truth question. A brief hint about the returned parameter set's shape or empty-result behavior is the only meaningful 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the 'default = all active' semantics for ips. The description's 'selected IPs' adds little beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 (dump) and resource (every persisted parameter of the selected IPs), with a clarifying source (.ioc). The bulk 'dump every' wording implicitly distinguishes it from the singular ip_param_get, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'the authoritative view after project_save' implies when this is the right tool (post-save state inspection), but there are no explicit alternatives or when-not conditions, e.g. no routing to ip_param_get for a single value or to a live in-memory view.

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