rotate_ip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the action (requesting a fresh IP) and the specifics (Singapore mobile, for current proxy). Though it doesn't mention side effects like timing or impact on existing connections, the operation is simple and self-explanatory – the behavior is transparent enough for an agent to understand what happens.

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 zero wasted words. It names the action, the specific IP type (Singapore mobile), and the target (current proxy) – all essential information, nothing extraneous.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no annotations, an output schema exists), the description is adequate. It explains the core action and scope. It doesn't mention prerequisites like an active proxy, but that is implied by 'current proxy.' The presence of an output schema likely covers return value details, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description doesn't need to explain any parameter semantics beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Request a fresh Singapore mobile IP for the current proxy.' It distinguishes from siblings like fetch_url (fetching URLs), my_proxy_status (checking status), and search_google (searching) – none of which involve IP rotation.

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 context is clear: this tool is for rotating the proxy IP. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the sibling tool names make the boundary obvious, and the single-purpose nature leaves no ambiguity. It's a clear context without exclusions, but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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