project_whitelist_get_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation but does not confirm idempotency, authorization requirements, error scenarios, or the implications of being legacy (e.g., deprecation warnings).

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, which is concise, but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded but does not fully earn its place due to missing guidance and parameter info.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return values (e.g., list of entries, fields). It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or legacy migration steps. For a list tool, this is incomplete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter 'options' described as 'Optional parameters' with a default of {}. The description adds no further meaning about what options can be passed (e.g., filtering, pagination, format), leaving the agent with insufficient detail.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'IP whitelist entries', and the scope 'for the project', and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'project_whitelist_get' by indicating it returns all entries. The '(legacy)' label also differentiates it from modern alternatives.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It marks the tool as legacy but fails to specify what newer tool should be used instead (e.g., 'project_access_list_get_all' from siblings). No exclusions or context for usage.

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