lan.sweep

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two real behavioral constraints: private-range-only targeting and a 1024-host cap. It says nothing about duration, rate limiting, concurrency, timeout, or whether the scan blocks — relevant for a sweep that can touch 256+ hosts.

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?

One front-loaded line with no filler and the key constraint (subnet range) placed prominently. The arrow shorthand is compact, though it compresses away detail that would have been useful.

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?

A network sweep is an inherently slow, side-effecting operation with no annotations and no output schema to lean on, yet the description omits runtime expectations, behavior on unresponsive hosts, and result contents beyond 'live set'. It is also internally inconsistent with the schema's /24–/30 restriction versus the stated 1024-host cap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the single 'subnet' parameter is undocumented in the schema beyond a regex. The description adds the RFC1918 requirement, but the cap of 1024 hosts conflicts with the schema pattern that permits only /24–/30, and required-ness and accepted formats are never spelled out.

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 (ping-probe) and resource (RFC1918 subnet) plus the return shape (live set), so an agent knows exactly what it does. It never distinguishes itself from close siblings like net.ping or lan.devices, which do related host-liveness work.

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 indication of when to prefer this over net.ping (single host), lan.devices (enumerate known devices), or net.portscan. The RFC1918 constraint is a scoping rule, not usage guidance, and there is no statement of prerequisites or exclusions.

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