get_network_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful detail about what is returned, including optional fields (game_state_info?, player_controller_info?), but does not disclose behavioral constraints such as whether it requires PIE or a networked world.

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 first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the detailed return block directly follows because no output schema exists. The description is appropriately sized for the amount of return information it must convey, though the long inline type could be considered dense.

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 that there are no input parameters and annotations cover the safety profile, the description supplies the missing return-value documentation in detail. The main gap is the absence of guidance on when to choose this tool over the many network-related siblings.

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 no input parameters, so the schema is empty and there is nothing for the description to clarify. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool has a baseline of 4.

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 uses a specific verb ("Retrieves") and names the resource ("comprehensive network information"), then enumerates the main components: NetDriver, replicated actors, GameState, and PlayerController. This clearly distinguishes the tool's scope from narrower siblings such as get_net_role or get_replication_info, even though it does not explicitly name an 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_network_settings, get_replication_info, or get_net_role. The description only states what is retrieved; it gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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