signalgrid_network_posture

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 description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the exact return structure ('dict with keys: hardware_ports, active_state, dns_nameservers, proxies, vpn_configurations, _note') and indicates the data source (e.g., 'scutil --nwi'). This goes beyond the 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?

The description is compact and well-organized: a one-sentence summary, a one-sentence use-case statement, and a structured return block. Every sentence adds value—no fluff. The use of a 'Returns' block is clean and informative.

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 simple no-parameter tool, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. The output schema is present but the description still explains the meaning of the return values (_note, active_state from 'scutil --nwi'). It fully stands alone for an agent to select and use correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description focuses on the output content rather than parameters, but since there are no params to explain, no additional parameter semantics are needed. It does describe the return structure clearly, which is relevant for output interpretation.

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 it provides a 'Network configuration snapshot' and enumerates specific contents (hardware ports, active interface state, DNS nameservers, proxy settings, VPNs). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'signalgrid_security_posture' or 'signalgrid_trust_verdict' by focusing on network configuration.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use to spot rogue DNS, unexpected proxies, or missing corporate VPN -- all classic device-trust red flags.' It does not mention alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use, but the use case is clear and distinct from other device-trust tools like 'signalgrid_security_posture' or 'signalgrid_trust_verdict'.

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