get_floating_ip_pools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes read-only operations like listing and showing capacity, but does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or has no side effects. It is clear enough but lacks explicit safety disclosure.

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 concise with a clear header, bullet points for functions, example queries, and return type. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Slightly verbose with 'Functions:' and 'Use when user requests:' but still efficient.

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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient context on what the tool does and what information it returns. It covers pool capacity and utilization, which is relevant for floating IP allocation.

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?

Input schema has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the output contains (capacity information) and the purpose of the returned data.

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 it gets a list of floating IP pools, with specific verb 'Get' and resource 'floating IP pools'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_floating_ips by focusing on pools and capacity.

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 example user queries indicating when to use the tool, such as 'Show floating IP pools' and 'Check floating IP capacity'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives among siblings.

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