list_vpc_addresses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It implies a read operation via 'List' but does not explain behavior when folder_id is null, pagination, response format, or any other runtime side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with an optional scoping parameter.

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 action and resource, with no redundant or filler content.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal and leaves key runtime behaviors undefined. The effect of omitting folder_id and the structure of the response are not addressed, making it insufficient for fully confident invocation.

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 description adds meaning by linking 'specified folder' to the folder_id parameter, which has no schema description (0% coverage). However, it does not clarify that folder_id is optional with a null default, nor does it provide format or constraints, so compensation is partial.

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 identifies the action ('List') and resource ('static IP addresses') clearly, distinguishing it from sibling VPC listing tools. However, the phrase 'specified folder' is ambiguous because the folder_id parameter is optional with a null default, so the exact scope when omitted is unclear.

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 such as list_vpc_networks or list_vpc_subnets. The description lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical usage contexts.

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