onesixtyone

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it is fast and outputs a list of IPs with valid community strings and system descriptions. It does not mention potential side effects like network noise, privilege requirements, or whether it is active/passive. While these may be inferred, the description lacks explicit disclosure, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context and output format. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff. The structure guides the agent from what, to when, to what to expect.

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?

The description covers the tool's output (list of IPs with community strings and system descriptions), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. It also provides usage context and speed comparison. It does not mention prerequisites like open UDP port or permission requirements, but these are minor gaps given the tool's nature. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with all three parameters documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, except for a vague mention of 'public, private, or custom' community strings, which is not parameter-specific. Per calibration, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 is a fast SNMP scanner that discovers devices and tests community strings, explicitly distinguishing it from snmpwalk and other network scanners. It specifies the resource (SNMP devices on port 161) and the action (testing community strings), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use when you suspect SNMP is running (port 161 UDP) and want to find readable community strings.' It also notes it is faster than snmpwalk for initial discovery, implying an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name other alternatives, so a small gap remains.

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