network_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Return ... observations' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation and 'local' scopes its impact. It does not explain what 'bounded' means or whether any permissions or side effects exist, but for a zero-parameter summary tool this is minimally adequate.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and object. Every word contributes, even if 'bounded' could have been defined more precisely.

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?

The description gives the broad domain of the returned data but, without an output schema, it leaves an agent to infer the exact fields and the meaning of 'bounded'. For a simple no-parameter tool this is adequate, but it would be stronger with a note about the output shape or the bound's significance.

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 has 100% coverage of that fact, so the description does not need to document parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add.

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 'Return' and identifies the resource as local interface and address observations, which separates it from sibling tools like process_summary and system_resources. The word 'bounded' is somewhat ambiguous, but the network focus is still clear.

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?

Usage context is implied by the network resource and the summary-like name, so an agent can infer this is for local network interface/address information. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool might be a better alternative for system-level or process-level summaries.

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