network_get

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read, so the '[READ]' prefix is largely redundant. The description does add value by disclosing what is returned (name, product types, timezone, bound template), a useful behavioral hint beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or error behavior.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the one-line purpose precedes a short Args block with no wasted wording. It is terse to the point of being slightly clipped, but every line 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 simple two-param read with no output schema, the description covers both parameters, names the id source, and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps (auth/target semantics beyond 'default') keep it just under full marks.

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%, so the description carries the full parameter burden and does so reasonably: network_id is defined as a Meraki network id with its source (network_list), and target is defined as a config target name with 'omit for the default'. Neither param gets format/validation detail, keeping it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('One network by id') and even enumerates the returned fields (name, product types, timezone, bound template), which clearly separates it from the list-oriented siblings. The distinction from network_list is implied by the parenthetical id source rather than stated outright, so it stops short of a 5.

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 is only implied: the 'from network_list' note establishes the id prerequisite chain, and 'omit for the default' explains one param's behavior. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative for fetching broader network data.

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