get_server_ip

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds the useful detail that the IP is public rather than internal/private. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format, latency expectations, or potential edge cases. The annotation covers the read-only safety profile, so the description adds a small amount of context beyond 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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place, and the key subject and object are front-loaded.

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?

This is a very simple zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and a readOnlyHint annotation. The description fully covers the tool's purpose and scope; nothing an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 and the schema confirms an empty properties object, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The baseline of 4 applies because with no parameters, the description does not need to compensate for any parameter coverage gaps.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'the server's public IP address,' making the tool's purpose immediately unambiguous. No sibling tool appears to retrieve a server's public IP, so the description effectively distinguishes it from the surrounding operations.

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 this tool is used when the agent needs the server's public IP address, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusionary guidance. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of sibling competition, the implied usage is adequate but not explicit.

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