get_floating_ips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. The description adequately implies a read-only operation via the 'get' verb and lists what information is returned, but does not explicitly state that it is safe or describe any side effects.

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 includes some redundancy, with bullet points that essentially repeat the main function. It is structured but could be more concise.

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 tool is simple with no parameters and has an output schema (indicated). The description mentions the return format and covers the necessary context for a straightforward list retrieval 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?

The input schema has no parameters, so coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. According to guidelines, zero-parameter tools have a baseline score of 4.

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 that the tool returns a list of floating IPs with associations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_floating_ip_pools, which is a closely related tool.

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 usage context ('when user requests floating IP information, external connectivity queries, or IP management tasks'), but lacks exclusions or mention of alternative tools for specific scenarios.

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