ip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions destructive actions like 'delete' without any warning about irreversibility or required permissions. For a management tool with create/delete capabilities, this is a significant gap in 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 brief yet complete, structured as a bullet list under 'Args:'. Every sentence serves a purpose: the opening line states the tool's scope, and the list enumerates actions concisely. No redundant information.

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 that an output schema exists, return values are not needed. The description covers all actions and parameter dependencies. However, it does not address error handling, default values (e.g., session_id defaults to 'default' but not mentioned), or the fact that some required parameters per action are not marked as required in the schema.

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 and does fully compensate. It explicitly lists each action value with its required parameters (e.g., 'create: 创建 IP 实例（需 ip_type + ip_name）') and provides example values for ip_type. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states '综合 IP 管理工具' (comprehensive IP management tool) and lists six distinct actions (types, list, create, delete, settings, sample_settings) with specific verbs and resources. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like session, power_design, or vivado, which focus on other subsystems.

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 outlines each action's required parameters, implicitly guiding when to use each action (e.g., create requires ip_type+ip_name). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide 'when not to use' guidance.

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