Check network status and this machine's setup

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, the description discloses concrete non-obvious behavior: status returns ids and reasons but never message bodies, reading a network never switches the current one, and approval never happens inside the tool. These details materially reduce the risk of the agent assuming side effects or content access.

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 dense but front-loaded with the default view and purpose, and nearly every sentence adds semantic or safety value. Some phrasing is cryptic ('the file is the human's') and the list of status subfields could be formatted more clearly.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool reports, and it does so for the main views: what attention and surroundings contain, what machine counts, and what networks and policy show. It stops short of giving a concrete output shape, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool safely.

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 gives only an enum for view and a short network description, so the description adds real meaning by explaining what status, networks, and policy each show and how reading a network relates to the current one. The extra terms attention, surroundings, mode, and machine appear to describe status output rather than parameters, which is useful but slightly ambiguous.

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 names a clear resource—network status and this machine's setup—and enumerates three views (status, networks, policy) with distinct purposes. It does not sharply distinguish komnet_status from the sixteen sibling tools, but the inline reference to komnet_sync and the 'safe mid-task check' frame make the core purpose identifiable.

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 triggers: status is the safe mid-task check; policy should be read when a claim is refused with APPROVAL_REQUIRED; mode='direct' means nothing arrives unless komnet_sync is called. It does not spell out when to choose komnet_status over komnet_inbox, komnet_read, or komnet_search, so exclusion guidance is incomplete.

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