get_ip_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return structure (dict with status and data), the hostname and adapters list, and that only active adapters are included. It does not explicitly state side-effect free behavior, but the tool's nature makes that clear, and the return format adds useful behavioral detail.

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 brief and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clarifying detail about IPv4/IPv6, a Returns block, and an example. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 no-parameter tool, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, the return format, and an example. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values further. Minor gap: it does not explain possible 'status' values or error conditions, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly shows an empty parameter list and an example call with no arguments, leaving no ambiguity.

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 'Return local network adapter information and IP addresses', which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes this tool from siblings like dns_lookup, ping, and get_open_ports. It further clarifies scope with 'all IPv4 and IPv6 addresses for each active adapter'.

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 usage context is implied by the description: use when you need local adapter/IP info. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., system_info or dns_lookup), and no when-not-to-use scenarios are described.

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