tvh_diagnose_network

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value beyond those flags: pagination of network/mux counts, recursive hardware traversal, and the explicit stance that missing assignments or repeated failures are reported as evidence rather than a guessed diagnosis.

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 short lines, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no wasted wording. The evidence-vs-diagnosis note earns its place as the tool's distinguishing promise.

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, so return values need not be described. For a single-parameter read tool the description covers purpose, scope and reporting philosophy adequately; only the parameter's meaning remains thin.

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 0% and network_uuid is undocumented in both schema and description. With only one self-descriptive parameter, the baseline applies rather than a penalty, but the description contributes nothing about identifier format or how to obtain a network_uuid.

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 ('Inspect') and concrete resources (network assignment, scan failures, active inputs), which is far more than the tool name alone conveys. The qualifier 'without starting a scan' implicitly separates it from tvh_scan_networks, though it never names that sibling outright.

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?

'Without starting a scan' gives an implied usage boundary, signaling this is the read-only alternative to tvh_scan_networks. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over tvh_list_networks or tvh_hardware_tree, so the routing guidance is left to inference.

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