openstack_list_floating_ips

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether it lists all floating IPs or filters by project/tenant, nor does it explain the role of the required device_id parameter, pagination, or authentication requirements. The description is too terse to inform the agent about side effects or scope.

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 is immediately understandable and front-loaded. It is appropriately brief for a simple list operation, though it could be expanded with a few valuable details without losing conciseness.

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 tool has one required parameter (device_id), but the description does not explain why it is required or what it does. There is no output schema, so the description should indicate expected return values, but it does not. For a tool that is not just a plain 'list all' but appears to filter by device, the missing context is a significant gap.

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 schema description for device_id is simply 'OpenStack device ID', which is vague and does not explain whether it refers to a server, port, or router. The description does not add any additional meaning about this parameter, such as how it filters the listing or whether it is required for all calls. Although schema coverage is 100%, the provided description is insufficient, so the score is below the baseline.

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 ('List') and the resource ('floating IPs in OpenStack (Neutron)'), which is specific and unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the resource is unique among the openstack_* siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, common use cases, or when NOT to use it. The description simply states the function without contextualizing it relative to other network or server listing tools.

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