list_dpi_applications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It fully discloses pagination behavior (all pages drained by default, manual paging with offset/limit, capped drain returns incomplete=true), host format requirements, and site parameter irrelevance. This is exemplary transparency.

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 dense but compact; each sentence earns its place. It flows logically from function to companion tool to parameter details to pagination behavior. No filler or repetition.

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, an output schema existing, and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, parameter semantics, pagination behavior, and return format. There are no critical gaps.

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 must explain all parameters. It does: host format (console name, ID, or composite MAC:numericId), site being ignored, and limit/offset behavior for page draining. Every parameter receives meaningful semantic explanation beyond the raw 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 ('DPI applications') and immediately ties it to traffic rules. It also names its companion tool (list_dpi_categories), distinguishing it from that sibling. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly says it is a companion to list_dpi_categories and explains the intended use (application IDs in traffic rule configurations). It also clarifies that the site parameter is ignored, which prevents misuse. It does not explicitly describe when not to use this tool, but the contextual guidance is strong enough.

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