list_addresses

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It specifies that the tool returns a dict with status, count, addresses, and message, but does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation or disclose any side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The term 'list' implies safety, but explicit disclosure is missing.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, concise yet comprehensive. Every sentence adds value, and it includes practical examples. It is appropriately front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains the return dictionary structure, parameter semantics, and provides usage examples. No obvious gaps remain.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: adom (ADOM name with default from env var), name_filter (partial match filtering), and type_filter (allowed values: ipmask, fqdn, iprange, wildcard). It also includes default behavior and usage examples.

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 firewall address objects in an ADOM' and defines address objects as network entities (hosts, subnets, FQDNs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_address (singular), create_address_*, delete_address, and list_address_groups.

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 provides clear context with parameter explanations and examples (e.g., using type_filter='fqdn' to find FQDN addresses). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like search_objects or get_address.

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