net_github_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly lists the three network checks performed and includes round-trip time, which is a helpful behavior detail. It does not mention failure modes, timeouts, or side effects, but for a read-only reachability probe the disclosed behavior is adequate.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence front-loads the primary purpose and appends the specific checks. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 network probe, the description provides all essential information an agent needs to decide whether to call it. The lack of an output schema is not a critical gap here because the tool's behavior is fully implied by the described checks, though a note on the response format would make it marginally more complete.

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 correctly focuses on the tool's behavior rather than inventing parameter details. The empty schema needs no further explanation.

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 names a specific verb ('Check'), a specific resource ('github.com'), and the exact scope ('DNS resolution, TCP 443, and the HTTPS status code with round-trip time'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools, which target proxy/diagnostic/network checks rather than a single host.

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 clear context: use this when you need to know whether github.com is reachable right now. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of the target (github.com) makes the intended use unambiguous even without referencing siblings.

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