Список плавающих IP

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

The description says 'returns a list' (read-only), but the annotations declare readOnlyHint: false, implying the tool may modify state. This directly contradicts the described behavior. No other behavioral context (e.g., pagination, side effects) is provided.

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 front-loads the verb and resource, listing the key return fields without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return fields. However, the annotation contradiction and lack of any mention of pagination or limits slightly reduce completeness, though not severely.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, making parameter semantics irrelevant. The description adds value by naming the fields in the return payload, which helps the agent understand the output. Baseline 4 for 0 params 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 tool returns a list of all floating IPs with specific fields (ID, addresses, zones, and service bindings). This unambiguous verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_floating_ip (singular) and bind/unbind_floating_ip.

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 when you need all floating IPs of a user, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided.

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