rybbit_get_excluded_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. It discloses the auth requirement (sites:read scope), which is valuable. It does not detail response format, pagination, or filtering behavior, but for a simple list retrieval, the scope note provides adequate transparency.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and the resource, with no extraneous information.

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 one parameter, and the description covers its purpose and auth requirement. It lacks an output schema, so a note about the returned list format could enhance completeness, but overall it is sufficient for a straightforward read operation.

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 schema already documents siteId with a description, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description's phrase 'for a site' reaffirms the parameter's purpose but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly specifies the resource ('list of IP addresses excluded from tracking for a site'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like rybbit_get_excluded_countries.

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 states the required scope (sites:read) and clarifies the tool is for a specific site, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary cases, though the tool's name and purpose make those implicit.

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