mcp-infoblox

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'active' and 'current' which implies real-time data, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, whether results are paginated (beyond the max_results parameter), what format the output takes, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 extremely concise - just two short sentences that get straight to the point. Every word earns its place: 'Get active DHCP leases from Infoblox' establishes the core function, and 'Shows current IP assignments from DHCP' clarifies the scope. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a query tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (list of leases with what fields?), doesn't mention error conditions or permissions required, and provides minimal behavioral context. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to help an agent understand how to interpret results.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters interact, whether they're mutually exclusive, or provide usage examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Get active DHCP leases') and resource ('from Infoblox'), specifying it shows current IP assignments from DHCP. It distinguishes from siblings like get_dhcp_ranges (which likely shows configured ranges rather than active leases) and get_fixed_addresses (which might show static assignments). However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from these alternatives.

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 implies usage context ('active DHCP leases', 'current IP assignments') which suggests this is for viewing current dynamic assignments rather than historical data or configuration. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_fixed_addresses or get_dhcp_ranges, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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