get_node_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose without mentioning read-only nature, required permissions, or what 'network interface configuration' entails (e.g., full list vs summary).

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 with two short sentences. Every word serves a purpose, and critical information is front-loaded. No redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the response will contain (e.g., interfaces, IPs, status). It lacks context about the scope of 'network configuration' and how this tool fits into the broader node management workflow.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds 'The node name' for the parameter, which restates the obvious. It does not provide format hints, constraints, or examples beyond what the parameter name and type imply.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('network interface configuration for a node'), which distinguishes it from unrelated siblings. However, it does not differentiate from the closely related sibling 'get_node_network_interface', which likely retrieves a single interface vs the full configuration.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_node_network_interface' for a specific interface, or other configuration tools). The description assumes the agent knows the context without hints.

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