get_network_summary

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. The verb 'return' suggests a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify state, nor does it mention performance implications, authorization needs, or error handling. The transparency is adequate for a simple read tool but could be more explicit.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences plus an Arg line. It immediately states the purpose, lists what is included, and explains the single parameter. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or tangents.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description covers the essential aspects: the tool's purpose, the content of the summary, and the parameter meaning. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly, though it could mention error conditions.

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 schema has one parameter (network_id) with no description, and the input schema coverage is 0%. The description adds that the parameter is a 'session id of the network to inspect', providing necessary context. However, it lacks format details or validation hints, and does not clarify that the ID must correspond to a currently loaded network. This is mediocre but functional.

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 returns a high-level summary of a loaded network, listing specific elements it includes (node/link counts, flow units, etc.). This is distinct from sibling tools like list_networks, get_nodes, or get_links, which provide lists or individual elements, not an overview.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies the network must be loaded (via the network_id parameter) but does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts where other tools like get_nodes might be more appropriate.

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