cipp_list_named_locations

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and parameter, omitting any mention of read-only nature, permissions needed, pagination behavior, or response structure. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand implications of invocation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It could benefit from slight expansion (e.g., result format) but remains concise and directly addresses core functionality.

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 simple list operation with one well-documented parameter, the description is adequate. However, given no output schema, it leaves ambiguity about the return format. It sufficiently covers core purpose but lacks completeness for an agent to fully predict behavior.

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 the tool description essentially duplicates the schema's parameter description. No additional semantic value (e.g., format constraints, edge cases) is added beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline without improvement.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('list'), resource ('named locations') with clarification ('trusted IPs'), and scope ('for a tenant'). The verb-resource combination is specific and uniquely identifies this tool among siblings, though explicit differentiation from other list tools is absent.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as other list tools (e.g., cipp_list_conditional_access_policies). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for appropriate use.

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