iptime_list_operations

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds that the tool 'does not contact the router' and that the catalog is 'fixed' and 'auditable,' giving useful context about side-effect-free, stable behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and object, the second adds a key behavioral clarification, both earning their place.

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 listing tool, the core operation is clear, but the two input parameters are completely unexplained and there is no output schema. This is a significant completeness gap for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly with meaningful arguments.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'mode' or 'domain' parameters. An agent cannot determine how to set these optional filters from the tool definition alone, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 and resource: 'List the fixed, auditable operation catalog.' The phrase 'does not contact the router' clarifies that this is a local metadata operation, distinguishing it from router-contact siblings, though it does not name an alternative 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 description clearly indicates the tool is for retrieving the fixed operation catalog without touching the router, so an agent can infer it is appropriate when offline/static operation metadata is needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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