inspect_network

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

The description begins with [READ] indicating a read-only operation and lists the information it retrieves. As no annotations are provided, this adequately communicates the behavioral trait of being non-destructive, though additional context (e.g., authentication) is not included.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear [READ] prefix, a one-line purpose, and a bulleted argument list. Every part is informative and 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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter, and the description covers its purpose and arguments. However, with no output schema, describing the return format (e.g., a JSON object) would increase completeness. Nonetheless, it is adequate for its context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds essential semantics: network_id accepts id or name, target is optional with a clear default behavior. This goes beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 it inspects a single network, detailing specific attributes (driver, IPAM subnet/gateway, attached containers). This distinguishes it from list_networks, which lists all networks, and other inspect 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 implies usage for detailed inspection of a specific network but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_networks for overview or other inspect tools for different resources.

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