ACTION_NETWORK_STATUS

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it enumerates the output variables (network_connected, network_type, wifi_ip, mobile_ip, network_success, network_error), lists the possible network_type values, and discloses a non-obvious quirk that mobile_ip is actually the first non-loopback IPv4 address and may equal the WiFi address. It also notes that results are returned as a variable-snapshot JSON. It does not cover permission requirements or whether the call has side effects.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by output fields, then the mobile_ip caveat, then the interpolation note; every sentence carries information. Minor polish issues remain, such as the doubled '。。' punctuation, but there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately enumerates the returned variables and their likely values, and it flags the mobile_ip edge case that would otherwise mislead an agent. The omission of permission or side-effect information is minor for what is fundamentally a read-only status probe.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by noting that string parameters support ${var} interpolation, which is not visible in the schema, but it does not expand on require, on_error, or node_timeout_ms.

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 specific verb-and-resource combination: query whether the device is online, the network type, and optionally the IP. The action enum values (status/ip/all) make the scope precise enough that an agent can distinguish this read-only status tool from ACTION_WIFI or ACTION_GET_TRAFFIC. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling tool as the alternative.

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 through the action breakdown (status = connectivity only, ip/all = also return addresses), but it never states when an agent should pick this tool rather than ACTION_WIFI, ACTION_GET_SIM_INFO, or ACTION_GET_TRAFFIC. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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