get_primary_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get a single Primary IP by ID', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary details, earning a top score for brevity and clarity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter semantics, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, usage context, and output format, making it insufficient for a tool that likely returns structured data. More information is needed to fully guide an AI agent.

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%, with one parameter 'id' of type 'number' documented only in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by specifying 'by ID', clarifying it's an identifier, but doesn't explain format, constraints, or examples. Baseline is 3 as the schema provides basic structure, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Primary IP by ID', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_primary_ips' or 'update_primary_ip', which would require mentioning it's for retrieving a single specific instance rather than listing or modifying.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_primary_ips' for multiple IPs or 'update_primary_ip' for modifications, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a valid ID or when this tool is appropriate in workflows.

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