list_discovery_ranges

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful domain context about scanned networks, but does not describe pagination, return shape, or any special access considerations beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

A single efficiently structured sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. The parenthetical and em-dash clarification add precision without 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?

For a low-complexity list tool with two optional parameters, full schema coverage, and sufficient annotations, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly. It could be marginally stronger by mentioning the active filter or default page size, but nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, and both parameters ('limit' and 'active') are documented in the schema. The description does not add filter semantics or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline score applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Discovery IP ranges (discovery_range_item)'), then clarifies scope as 'which IP ranges/networks are scanned'. This clearly separates it from sibling discovery tools such as list_discovery_runs, list_discovered_devices, and list_discovery_schedules.

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 is implied by the resource name, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives or explain when an agent should choose this over related discovery list tools.

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