user_get_ip_whitelist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (subnet, subnet_size, date_added, ip_type) and the parameter type (UUID or email), which is useful. However, it does not mention that this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies it), any prerequisites, or error behavior. It is adequate but not exhaustive for a simple get operation.

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 compact and well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. It front-loads the purpose and provides all necessary details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value; no filler.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter format, and return fields. Given the simplicity of the tool (single param, straightforward list retrieval), it is nearly complete. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs the singular entry tool, but that is more of a usage guideline. For the tool's complexity, it is sufficient.

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 description enriches the schema by specifying that user_id can be either a UUID or an email address, which is critical for correct invocation. The schema only defines 'string', so the description adds significant meaning beyond the structured field. Since there is only one parameter and it is fully clarified, this is excellent.

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') and resource ('IP whitelist for a user'), and the return type ('List of IP whitelist entries') distinguishes it from the sibling tool user_get_ip_whitelist_entry, which fetches a single entry. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately differentiates from related tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like user_get_ip_whitelist_entry. The description implies it returns the entire list, and the sibling name suggests singular vs plural, but the description itself does not state conditions or exclusions. The usage is implied by the purpose and return type rather than explicitly stated.

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