Get Compute VM IP

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral detail: the tool returns an http URL, not just the IP. It also implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention failure modes, what happens if the VM has no external IP, or any permissions needed. It is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and then specifies the return format. Every word contributes meaning, there is no redundancy, and it is immediately scannable by an agent.

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 simple getter with no output schema, the description covers the operation and the return value sufficiently. The parameters are fully documented in the schema. The main missing piece is guidance on distinguishing this tool from 'gcp-compute-get-instance-ip', but that is a usage-guideline concern rather than a completeness gap for the tool's core function.

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 parameters ('zone', 'vmName', 'projectId') are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the output behavior, so it neither helps nor hinders. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('external IP of a VM'), and even specifies the output format ('return an http URL'). It is easy to understand what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the near-duplicate sibling tool 'gcp-compute-get-instance-ip', so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'gcp-compute-get-instance-ip' and 'get-compute-vm-status' available, there is no explicit context about which scenario calls for this tool. The intended usage is only implied by the description, which is not enough for reliable tool selection.

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