get_network_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It states the tool is read-only, reads from /proc/net/dev, and only fails if that file is unreadable. This is solid behavioral context, though it doesn't describe the return format edge cases like no interfaces present.

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?

Three concise, purposeful sentences: first states what it returns, second adds source and failure mode, third gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, and the description covers the key aspects: return value content, data source, read-only nature, failure condition, and usage context. For a simple no-parameter tool, this is fully complete.

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, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description communicates that no arguments are needed, and the schema confirms no properties, so nothing more is required.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Returns' and resource 'per-interface network I/O counters' with detailed fields (bytes, packets, errors, drops). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tool get_network_connections which handles sockets.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('bandwidth and drop analysis') and names the alternative (get_network_connections for sockets). This gives clear guidance on selecting between the two network-related tools.

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