chatgpt_network_diagnostics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the data is local, desensitized, and exactly which fields are present and absent, offering transparency about the tool's scope and privacy implications. This goes beyond a simple read statement, though it does not mention any potential side effects or error conditions.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with precise details on content and exclusions. Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 simple read-only diagnostics tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what data is available and what is deliberately omitted. The only gap is the unexplained limit parameter, but overall the tool is easy to understand and 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 schema has one parameter (limit) with a default, min, and max, but no description in the schema, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention the limit parameter or explain its behavior, so the agent must infer its meaning from the schema alone. The description adds no semantic value for this parameter.

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 tool reads local desensitized network exception records, specifying the exact fields included (time, method, path, status code, resource type) and excluded (query params, cookies, bodies). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chatgpt_status or chatgpt_circuit_breaker_status, which focus on other status aspects.

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 implies the tool is used for inspecting network diagnostics without explicitly naming alternatives. It provides clear context on what the tool returns and its limitations, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus chatgpt_status or chatgpt_circuit_breaker_status. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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