list_whitelist_ips

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the result is paginated starting at page 1, and a next_page value in the response signals more results, which is exactly the operational detail an agent needs to avoid treating the first page as complete.

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 zero padding. What the tool returns comes first, then the pagination protocol, which is the right front-loading for a list tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and pagination — the main behavioral risk for a list tool — is covered. The one gap is the exact mechanics of passing next_page back as the `page` argument, which the description leaves slightly underspecified.

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% for the single `page` parameter, so the description must carry the load — and it does, explaining the default start at page 1 and instructing the agent to feed the returned next_page back in. Minor ambiguity remains over whether next_page is passed as `page` verbatim or is an opaque token.

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 names the resource precisely — IP addresses allowed to use the proxy without a password — plus the fields returned (ports, targeting). The list/read verb is implied rather than stated, but with the tool name and the add/remove siblings, an agent can tell exactly what this returns.

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?

Usage guidance covers pagination well ('paged from page 1', 'call again with next_page'), but says nothing about when to choose this over the sibling add_whitelist_ip / remove_whitelist_ip / check_proxy tools. The procedural guidance is clear; the sibling routing is left to inference.

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