net

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose some traits the schema does not: tcp_check reports timing, listening identifies the owning pid, and ping is packet-based. It omits what happens on failure, whether elevated privileges are needed for port/pid enumeration, and the default timeouts and byte caps that the schema only names.

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 dense sentence front-loads the tool's identity ('Network probes') and then itemizes each action with its defining detail. No filler, no restatement of the name, and every clause adds distinguishing information.

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 an eight-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what each action does but says nothing about return shape, error behavior, or privilege requirements for the more sensitive probes (listening, interfaces). It is adequate but leaves gaps an agent would need to discover by trial.

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 description coverage is 100% and all eight parameters are documented there, including which action each one belongs to, so the description need not repeat them. The description adds nothing about parameter interaction beyond what the schema already states, which is the baseline for a fully covered schema.

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 enumerates five concrete probes (dns, tcp_check, listening, interfaces, ping) and states what each one returns, so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like http_request or shell_exec, which could also answer some of these questions.

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?

Enumerating the five actions with their meaning implies when each sub-action applies, which is useful selection guidance. But there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing against siblings (http_request, shell_exec, sys_info), and no stated prerequisites such as privileges for the listening probe.

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