timeweb_list_floating_ips

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It fails to mention pagination behavior, response format details, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving the agent to infer these from the schema and sibling tool names.

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 with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and perfectly sized for a simple list operation.

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 the tool's simplicity, optional pagination parameters, and absence of an output schema, the description suffices to convey the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more complete by noting that it returns the list of floating IPs and their properties, but the current wording is adequate.

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 100% description coverage for limit, format, and offset, so the description text does not need to add parameter details. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full semantic weight.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), resource ('floating IP addresses'), and scope ('in the account'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_floating_ip (single IP) or create_floating_ip. Its intent is unambiguous.

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 tool name and description; it is evidently for enumerating all floating IPs. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_floating_ip for a specific IP or when to apply pagination.

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