server_get_by_ip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Find' implies a non-destructive read, but it does not disclose whether the lookup is exact, whether multiple servers could match, what happens on no match, or the response format. This is minimal behavioral 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the tool's action and key qualifier in the most concise effective way.

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 one-parameter tool, this is adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves gaps about return behavior and edge cases (e.g., not found). It provides just enough for an agent to know when and how to call it, but no more.

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%, with the ip parameter already described as 'IP address'. The tool description adds no new parameter information, format constraints, or examples. This matches the baseline of 3 for fully covered 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 'Find server by IP address' clearly states the verb (find), resource (server), and the differentiator (by IP address). It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling tool server_get, which presumably uses a different key, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 implies the use case: when you have an IP address and need to find the corresponding server. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over server_get or other server-related tools, and no exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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