get_network_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states the high-level purpose and does not disclose the return format, whether it includes node types or connection details, potential performance implications, or any side effects. For a read-only tool this is a moderate gap but leaves much to inference.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words, front-loading the main action. It earns its place by stating the tool's core function, though it is slightly under-specified. The brevity is appropriate for a simple tool, but it sacrifices necessary detail.

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 has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is not sufficiently complete. It fails to explain the 'path' parameter, the structure of the returned overview, or any limitations (e.g., scope of 'all nodes'). While the tool seems simple, the lack of parameter and output details leaves the agent uncertain about the invocation and expected response.

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 optional 'path' parameter with default '/obj', but has 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention 'path' at all, leaving the agent to guess its meaning (likely the network path to query). This is a critical gap since the parameter's effect on the result is entirely unexplained.

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 ('Get') and resource ('overview of all nodes in a network with their connections'). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_scene_summary (scene-wide) and get_node_info (single node), as it focuses on the network-level overview with nodes and connections.

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. There is no mention of suitable scenarios, exclusions, or how it differs from similar tools like get_scene_summary or get_selection. The usage context is only implied by the description's mention of 'network' and 'overview'.

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