routing_ip_addresses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. Since annotations carry the burden, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 consists of two sentences. The first sentence is clear and front-loaded. The second sentence about the return type is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but overall it is concise and to the point.

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 that annotations cover safety, output schema exists, and there are no required parameters, the description is fairly complete. However, it could benefit from mentioning that the list includes IP addresses from all devices (since no filter parameters exist).

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% as both parameters ('limit' and 'offset') have descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is already provided in the input schema.

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 'List all IP addresses from LibreNMS,' which identifies the action (list), the resource (IP addresses), and the system (LibreNMS). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools that focus on alerts, devices, ports, etc.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or references to other tools that might be more appropriate.

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