Network Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the exact data returned (e.g., per-interface type, link state, MAC, addresses, MTU) and calls it a 'compact health view.' It does not reveal potential edge cases or rate limits, but with strong annotations and output schema, this is sufficient for a read-only listing tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core concept 'Compact network health view,' and includes a concise enumeration of data fields. The final sentence provides actionable use cases without any filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, one optional parameter, and an existing output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the tool's scope, return content, and intended use case. The output schema handles detailed return structure, so the description doesn't need to elaborate further.

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 input schema covers 100% of the single parameter (response_format) with a clear enum, default, and explicit description. The tool description itself does not mention the parameter, but per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high. No additional semantic value is needed from the description.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it provides a 'compact network health view' with a specific list of data (IP addresses per interface, default routes, DNS nameservers, per-interface type, link state, MAC, addresses, MTU). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as 'the first stop' for network health queries and NIC diagnostics, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description gives clear context on when to use this tool: 'The first stop for 'is the NAS's networking okay?' or diagnosing a down NIC.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but it establishes a clear primary use case. Sibling tools like truenas_connection_status exist, but no direct comparison is provided, so this is a 4 rather than a 5.

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