system_network_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses important runtime behavior, such as the possibility that concurrent IDE clients may receive different ports, and clarifies the scope of returned information. It does not discuss side effects, but the 'Inspect' framing strongly implies a read-only operation.

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 structured into Purpose, Constraints, and Example sections in just four short lines. Every sentence provides useful information, and the key content is 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?

Given that there are no parameters and the tool has an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose, key return values, and a runtime caveat. The example call rounds out the usage picture, making the description complete for agent 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The example 'system_network_info()' correctly demonstrates that no arguments are required, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter details.

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 ('Inspect') and defines the resource scope ('host/container networking, browser host access, and callback routes'). It also lists concrete outputs like effective RPC/listener/stream ports and LHOST guidance, making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the agent needs networking details such as ports, LHOST, localhost scope, or the Docker-host alias. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the purpose and constraints provide enough guidance for selection.

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