bowire.network.get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it implies a non-destructive read ('Show'), discloses secret-handling behavior ('Passwords are shown only as their reference, never the value'), and reveals it exposes per-layer provenance and misconfiguration state. It does not mention auth/permission requirements or rate limits, so it stops short of full coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the core purpose before the parenthetical breakdown of returned fields; almost every clause earns its place. It is dense and slightly list-heavy, but not padded.

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?

There is no output schema or annotation coverage, so the description must describe the return surface, and it does so thoroughly (proxy config, bypass list, CA bundle, provenance, misconfig, plugin eligibility). The only gap is the absence of permission/scope prerequisites for a settings-inspection call.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is a single optional parameter whose 'omit for global settings' semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about workspaceId scoping, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (show how outbound connections leave the machine) and enumerates exactly what it reports: proxy mode/URL, bypass list, CA bundle, layer provenance, misconfigurations, and plugin proxy eligibility. No sibling tool (env.list, allowlist.show, discover, etc.) covers network egress configuration, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: this is clearly a diagnostic/inspection call for outbound proxy setup, and 'what is misconfigured' hints at troubleshooting. However, there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no prerequisite conditions, and no named alternative to prefer.

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