list system ips

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the detail that it executes a verified command 'v-list-sys-ips', which gives some implementation transparency. However, it doesn't disclose behavior like whether it returns all IPs or only active ones, or any formatting nuances beyond the format parameter. The description adds modest value beyond annotations but doesn't fully describe behavioral traits.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding the implementation detail. Every word earns its place, and there's no fluff. It could arguably be slightly more informative about output or usage, but for a simple list tool, it's appropriately concise.

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 simplicity (1 optional parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is nearly complete. The output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. The only missing context is explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives, but the unique resource name and read-only nature make it easy for an agent to select correctly. The description plus annotations cover the essential context for a safe, correct call.

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%, so the description carries the burden for parameter semantics. The description mentions 'List configured server IP addresses' but doesn't explain the 'format' parameter's effect on output. The schema itself provides an enum with 'json' and 'plain' and a default of 'json', which is self-explanatory for an agent. Since the parameter is simple and well-defined by the enum, the description's lack of parameter detail is a minor gap, but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured server IP addresses'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_users or list_web_domains. It also mentions the underlying command 'v-list-sys-ips', adding specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from any sibling that might also list system-level resources, though the resource name is sufficiently unique.

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 implies usage for retrieving server IP addresses, and the readOnlyHint annotation reinforces that it's a safe read operation. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough for a simple list operation, but there's no explicit routing or condition-based guidance.

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