bitpull_network

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description usefully adds domain semantics: network machines run the person's own jobs first and for free. It does not state whose perspective is returned, whether it is scoped to the authenticated user, or what happens for machines not yet networked.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the meaning of "network". No filler or repetition.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool this is largely sufficient: the safety signal comes from annotations and the domain concept is explained. The only real gap is that "the person's" is never anchored to the calling identity.

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 takes no parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 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 concrete verb and resource ("List the person's computers") plus the distinguishing attribute ("which are in their network"). It is clearly separable from a mutating sibling like bitpull_set_network, though it never explicitly contrasts with it.

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 only implied by the read-only "list" framing; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to set_network or other alternatives. An agent can infer this is the read counterpart to the set/network tools, but must do the inference itself.

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