ip_in_cidr

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'check whether', which is read-only, but fails to mention error conditions (e.g., invalid IP or CIDR format), or any additional side effects. The output schema exists but its details are not visible.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundant information, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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 the tool's simplicity (two string parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks guidance on input formats, edge cases, and how it complements sibling tools like 'cidr_info'. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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%, meaning the schema has no descriptions for the two parameters. The tool description does not add any semantic details, format hints, or examples for 'ip' or 'cidr' strings, leaving the agent without guidance on valid input formats.

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 verb 'check' and the resource 'IP address falls inside a given CIDR network'. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'cidr_info' which returns info about a CIDR, and other sibling tools are unrelated to IP/CIDR checks.

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 for testing IP membership in a CIDR network, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'cidr_info'), nor does it mention when not to use it. It relies on the agent inferring the context.

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