IP-адреса балансировщика

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('Получает список' - gets a list), but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, indicating the tool might not be read-only. This is a direct contradiction, confusing the agent about safety and side effects. No other behavioral details are disclosed.

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, efficient and front-loaded with the verb. It contains no redundant information and earns every word.

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 one-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers the main purpose adequately. However, the contradiction with annotations and lack of response format details leave gaps that could confuse an agent.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for balancer_id. The tool description itself does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 ('Получает' - gets) and the resource ('список backend IP-адресов, привязанных к балансировщику'). It also clarifies the purpose of these IPs in traffic distribution. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_balancers or get_balancer.

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 retrieving backend IPs of a balancer but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or references to alternative tools. The context is clear, but the lack of differentiation from sibling tools prevents a higher score.

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