report_ip_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. "Snapshot" and "Get" imply a read-only operation, but it never confirms that, never says a project must be open first, and never indicates whether the snapshot is cheap or expensive. "Structured" hints at a return format but does not describe it.

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?

One sentence with no filler, and the scope ("project's IP") is front-loaded before the qualifier. Nothing repeats the title or wastes the agent's attention.

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?

There are no parameters, annotations, or output schema to lean on, so the description is the only source of context — and it does not say what fields the snapshot contains, which IP types it covers, or that an open project is required. Adequate to identify the tool, thin for invoking it confidently.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and no risk of the description contradicting the inputs. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ("Get") and a specific resource (the project's IP plus their upgrade status), which lets an agent tell it apart from mutation siblings like upgrade_ip or create_ip. It does not, however, name those siblings or explicitly contrast itself with them, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 phrase "upgrade status" implies the use case (checking which IP needs attention before calling upgrade_ip), but the description never states when to use this versus the upgrade or list tools, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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