get_network_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the full shape of what is returned (net driver class/settings, game state, player list, config settings), which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with a single clear purpose sentence, followed by a structured return-value block. The return enumeration is long but earns its place because no output schema exists; nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, enumerating every field an agent would need. The only gap is that it does not position itself relative to the many similar network-introspection 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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not fabricate parameter detail.

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 ('Retrieves') and resource ('network configuration and settings for the world'), then enumerates the covered domains: NetDriver, GameState, players, and config file settings. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as get_network_info, get_replication_info, or get_world_net_mode, which an agent would need to disambiguate.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. With several closely related read tools (get_network_info, get_replication_info, get_dedicated_server_status, get_world_net_mode) in the sibling list, the absence of any routing advice leaves the agent to guess which to call.

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