get_network_config

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and 'full details of a saved network configuration' clarifies scope. However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, error cases, or other behavioral details, though the output schema likely covers return structure.

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 a single front-loaded sentence followed by a minimal parameter note. Every element adds value, with no redundant or filler text.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema available, the description provides enough context: what the tool does, how to obtain the required ID, and what kind of result to expect. No critical information is missing.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining that 'id' is a configuration profile ID and directs the agent to list_network_configs to obtain valid values. This is complete and actionable for the only parameter.

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 identifies the operation ('Get'), the resource ('network configuration'), and the selection mechanism ('by ID'). It is distinct from siblings like list_network_configs and get_network_config_status by emphasizing 'full details of a saved network configuration.'

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 usage context: fetch a specific saved configuration using its ID. It also points to list_network_configs to discover valid IDs, which is useful routing information, though it does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool versus specific sibling getters.

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