get_network_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds behavioral details beyond that, such as returning either Markdown or JSON, reporting I/O totals 'since boot', and conditionally including TCP state counts, which helps the agent understand what the tool actually produces and what optional behavior is available.

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 well-organized: the primary function is stated first, followed by the optional feature and its use case, then a compact return-format summary. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no filler or repeated schema content.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with only two optional parameters, and the description covers the tool's scope, optional behavior, and return structure. The output format is fully described with specific keys, so an agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value for include_connections by explaining its diagnostic purpose ('spotting connection leaks or unexpected listeners'), which goes beyond the schema's simple field description. It also clarifies the structure of the return object, aiding parameter 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get network interfaces, their addresses, and I/O totals since boot.' It clearly defines the tool's scope and differentiates it from sibling status tools like get_cpu_status or get_memory_status by focusing on network-specific data.

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 for using the optional include_connections feature, noting it is 'useful for spotting connection leaks or unexpected listeners.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the network-focused purpose is evident from the first sentence, which is sufficient given the sibling tool names.

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