ip_param_get

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden; it does establish the operation as a read and discloses the equivalent CLI invocation, which is genuinely useful context. It says nothing about behavior when the parameter name is invalid, whether values are returned typed or as strings, or what errors surface.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is close to under-specification given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place to explain return shape and failure modes, and it covers neither. For a lookup tool an agent needs to know what a returned parameter value looks like and what happens on an unknown param name.

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 all three parameters (ip, param, project_id) are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The embedded CLI form `get ip parameters <ip> <param>` reinforces which argument is which, but adds no format or value-domain detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and a precisely scoped resource (one IP parameter), with the singular 'one' implicitly distinguishing it from ip_params_dump and ip_param_set. It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g., project must be open), and no pointer to alternatives such as ip_params_dump for bulk reads or ip_param_set for writes. The agent must reconstruct routing logic from the sibling list alone.

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