list_ipsec_peers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: filters are substring (not exact) matches, and secrets intentionally live on /ip ipsec identity and are exposed by no tool, which prevents an agent from hunting for credential data.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by a clearly-delimited Notes block. Both notes earn their place; there is no padding 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile. Combined with the filter semantics and the secrets caveat, the definition is nearly complete, with the only real residual gap being the undocumented device parameter and the lack of routing versus runtime peers.

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. It compensates for the two filter parameters by disclosing substring-match semantics, but the "device" parameter is never explained (device identifier, name, IP?) and it does not state what name_filter/address_filter actually match against.

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+resource ("Lists the configured IPsec peers") and the word "configured" implicitly separates it from the runtime-oriented sibling get_ipsec_active_peers. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 listing nature and the filter note imply when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative despite five closely related ipsec list/get siblings (list_ipsec_profiles, get_ipsec_active_peers, list_ipsec_policies, list_ipsec_proposals).

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