network_scan

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool probes every address on the subnet and that execution may take up to 30 seconds, which are useful runtime behaviors beyond what the schema reveals. It does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, but the described behavior of probing and discovering devices strongly implies a non-destructive network scan.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and result, then adds the important performance characteristic and usage framing. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or tautological 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential information an agent needs: what is scanned, what will be discovered, how long it may take, and when it should be used. It could optionally mention that the result is a list of discovered devices, but the stated outcome '(IP, MAC, hostname)' makes that reasonably clear. Overall, it is complete enough for a zero-argument tool.

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 tool has zero parameters)SkipProcessing... The schema description coverage is 100% vacuously, so there is no parameter information for the description to supplement. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate because the description focuses on what the tool returns and how it behaves rather than parameter details.

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 states a specific verb ('Scan'), a clear resource ('the local network'), and the expected output ('devices (IP, MAC, hostname)'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like open_ports or system_status because it targets network device discovery rather than system or port inspection.

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?

It gives explicit context on when to use it: it is an answer to a question somebody asked, not a way to begin a session or workflow. It also sets expectations about duration ('up to 30 seconds'), which helps an agent decide whether to invoke it. It does not name specific alternative tools for exclusion, but the guidance is sufficient for a zero-parameter, one-off scan.

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