get_top_ips

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic output and does not mention limitations like how sample_limit affects results, whether ranking is exact or approximate, or any performance or caching behavior.

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 conveys the core function without filler. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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?

The description is too minimal to be complete for an analytics tool. It omits the role of sample_limit, any caveats about how request counts are computed, and does not clarify when this tool is preferable over sibling tools. While the output schema likely covers return values, other context is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains top_n and time_range indirectly ('top N IP addresses', 'given time range'), but completely omits sample_limit. This leaves a significant parameter unexplained.

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 the top N IP addresses ranked by request count over a time range, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_logs_by_ip or list_unique_ips.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_unique_ips or search_logs_by_ip. It lacks exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent choose it appropriately.

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