get_allowed_ips

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 implies a non-mutating read by using 'Get list,' but it does not disclose authorization requirements, whether the result is scoped by the zoid parameter, or any other behavioral traits an agent would need for safe invocation.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and front-loaded, though it sacrifices helpful detail for brevity.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the description is still incomplete for a tool with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter. An agent cannot confidently determine what zoid is or what conditions justify calling this tool.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the required 'zoid' parameter. The phrase 'for organization' hints at organizational scope but never explicitly connects it to zoid, leaving the agent to guess what value to supply.

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 specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('allowed IP ranges'), and the organizational scope. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like add_allowed_ips and delete_allowed_ips by its read-only intent and resource focus.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of add/delete allowed IPs' or describe the calling context.

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