sigsci_list_suspicious_ips

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'list suspicious IPs' without explaining whether it is read-only (likely), what 'suspicious' means, or any side effects. Minimal 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?

Very short and to the point, but at the cost of completeness. It is front-loaded but lacks any detail beyond the core action.

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?

Simple tool, but description omits details like pagination (limit parameter), default values, ordering, or return format. Given no output schema, more context would help agents understand what to expect.

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 coverage is 100%, so description does not need to restate parameters. It adds no additional meaning beyond what schema provides, which is acceptable for high coverage.

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 tool lists suspicious IPs for a site, with specific verb 'list' and resource 'suspicious IPs'. It distinguishes from sibling list tools (e.g., list_rate_limited_ips) by targeting a specific resource type.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to prefer list_suspicious_ips over list_events or list_rate_limited_ips.

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