list_address_objects

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the basic action without addressing read-only nature, output format, pagination, permissions, or potential side effects. For a listing tool, the user is left without information about what the response will contain or whether any filters are applied.

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 sentence with no filler, efficiently conveying the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation with two optional parameters, though it could arguably be expanded slightly without becoming verbose.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not specify the return format, whether the list is paginated, or how errors are handled. Given the low complexity and two optional parameters, a bit more context (e.g., 'Returns all address objects in the specified VDOM') would be expected for 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters ('vdom' and 'device') have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond naming the object types, but the schema already handles parameter documentation adequately. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('address objects'), and even enumerates the object types (subnet, fqdn, iprange, geography). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_interfaces or list_firewall_policies, which operate on different resource types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which another tool (e.g., search_sessions) would be preferred. The intended use is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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