list_blacklists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return format (two arrays: ipv4 and domains, with fields including optional/ignored flags), which is useful. However, it does not mention any other behavioral aspects like whether the list includes disabled RBLs, pagination, or error conditions. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence and output details in the second. There is no redundant information, and every word serves a purpose. It is a model of conciseness.

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 simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It provides enough context about the return structure (ipv4 and domains arrays) to give the agent a clear idea of what to expect. It lacks only deeper behavioral details, but the output schema likely covers the exact shape. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward list operation.

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 schema coverage is 100%. Per the guidelines, a parameterless tool receives a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. It adds value by describing the output, which is more relevant than parameter semantics here.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the list of blacklists (RBLs) checked by the HetrixTools platform.' It specifies the resource (HetzrixTools blacklists), the action (get/list), and the scope (checked by platform). The additional detail about returning ipv4 and domains arrays further distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_blacklist_monitors, making the purpose 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention list_blacklist_monitors, get_blacklist_report, or any other sibling as a contrast, nor does it mention any prerequisites or contextual triggers. The usage is only implied by the tool name and self-explanatory purpose.

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