switch_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Switch') but doesn't explain what this means operationally—whether it changes global state, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how it affects subsequent operations. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise—just three words—and front-loaded with the essential action. There's zero waste or redundancy, making it efficient for quick comprehension without sacrificing clarity of purpose.

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 tool's potential complexity (changing network state) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what happens after switching, error conditions, or how this interacts with other tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema already provides. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the 'network' parameter is fully documented with enum values and description), the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema does all the work, and the description doesn't compensate or add value.

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 verb ('Switch') and resource ('Solana network'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools that might also interact with network settings or configurations, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_network_info', leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal selection.

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