i_check_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it names the exact probes (DNS resolution and TCP connectivity) so the agent knows real network traffic occurs, and it discloses the conditional output ('provides troubleshooting steps (DNS change, hosts file, VPN)') when the check fails. It omits timeout/duration behavior and whether it makes any state changes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, the method in sentence two, and the failure-path behavior last — an ordering that matches how an agent decides to call and then interprets the result.

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 zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers what is probed and what a failure yields, which is enough to call it correctly. The only meaningful gap is the success-case return signal (what 'reachable' looks like) and expected latency, which an agent may want before invoking it in a flow.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to add beyond the schema; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly presents it as a targetable, argument-free check (host is implied as iconfont.cn), with no misleading implication that arguments are accepted.

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 and resource ('Check if iconfont.cn is reachable from this machine') and names the mechanism ('Tests DNS resolution and TCP connectivity'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like i_check_auth (credential state) or i_login (session establishment).

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is a diagnostic to run when network problems are suspected, but the description never says when to run it (e.g., before i_login, after a failed i_download) or what alternative tools to use instead. There are no exclusions and no sibling routing.

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