list_ip_addresses

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation without side effects. The description adds the context that it operates on a MikroTik device, but provides no additional behavioral details such as return format, pagination, or whether it includes dynamic/disabled addresses by default. This is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 redundant words. It is appropriately concise for the purpose statement.

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?

Despite having 6 optional parameters and no schema descriptions, the description remains minimal. It doesn't explain filter usage, whether the list includes dynamic/disabled entries, or how the output is structured (though an output schema exists). The tool appears simple, but the description leaves too many gaps for an agent to know how to use it effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining the six parameters (device, dynamic_only, disabled_only, address_filter, network_filter, interface_filter). The description mentions none of them, leaving the agent to infer from parameter titles alone. It does not clarify filter semantics (e.g., exact match vs substring) or how device selection works.

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 (lists), the resource (IP addresses), and the scope (MikroTik device). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_ip_address (which retrieves a single address) and list_ipv6_addresses (different address family), so an agent can select this tool appropriately.

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 guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives, such as get_ip_address for a specific address or list_ipv6_addresses for IPv6. It doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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