reserved_ip_list_attached

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output includes instance IDs, which is useful. But it does not mention any read-only or side-effect behavior, filtering, or lack of parameters. Since it's a list operation, the description is adequate but not rich.

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 concise two-part statement: a one-sentence title and a brief return description. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes the key detail about instance IDs. No fluff, though the 'Returns:' format could be more compact.

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?

Given it's a simple list tool with no parameters, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not mention any potential limitations like pagination, or what 'attached' means exactly. With an output schema present, the return structure is presumably defined, so the description's job is lighter. Still, for a zero-param list tool, it covers the essentials.

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?

No parameters exist, so there are no parameter semantics to add. With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, but because the description adds no additional semantic context (e.g., what 'attached' means or any scope), it provides minimal value beyond the fact it's a list. Schema coverage is 100% trivially. Score 3 reflects that the description is clear but adds little beyond the name.

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 it lists attached reserved IPs, and clarifies they are attached to instances including the instance ID. This is specific enough to distinguish from reserved_ip_list_unattached, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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: use this when you need attached reserved IPs, contrasting with unattached implicitly. But it does not explicitly state when to use this versus other reserved IP tools, nor mention any exclusions. It provides basic context but lacks clear routing.

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