tool_get_agntcy_network_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is a read operation ('Get information') and provides context about the network project, but does not mention any behavioral traits like data freshness, auth requirements, or rate limits. For a simple info tool, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and add context efficiently. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is largely complete. It mentions the network project and what is shown. However, it could briefly note that it is a read-only query, but the term 'Get' implies that. Slightly incomplete without any mention of potential latency or data source.

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 with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by listing what information is returned (protocol versions, member organizations, SDKs, stats), going beyond the empty schema.

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 the tool retrieves information about the AGNTCY network and ecosystem, specifying what it includes (protocol versions, member organizations, SDKs, stats). This distinguishes it from siblings that deal with messages, agents, or validations.

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 when network info is needed, and the sibling tools cover different functionalities (messages, agents, capabilities), making the context clear. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives is provided.

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