getNetwork

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly indicates this is a read-only state snapshot and specifies what information is included (devices, interfaces, cable topology). It does not discuss failure modes or exact output format, but for a zero-parameter read operation the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core behavior and output contents, and the second sentence adds direct usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-style workspace snapshot with no annotations, the description gives an agent all it needs: what the tool returns, the scope of the data, and guidance for when to invoke it. No additional context is necessary.

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 input schema is empty and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description adds nothing about parameters, but none are needed; a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 states a clear, specific function: it returns a snapshot of the entire workspace, enumerating devices, interfaces with in_use flags, and cables. It differentiates from the likely narrower getDeviceInfo tool by emphasizing workspace-wide scope.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call the tool: before addLink or removeDevice when the current state is uncertain. It does not discuss when not to use it or how it compares to every sibling, but the stated usage guidance is clear and actionable for the most relevant operations.

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