get_network_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. As a read-only information getter, it has no side effects, but the description does not mention potential performance cost of gathering a 'full snapshot' or any permissions required. It accurately lists what data is returned but adds no extra behavioral context beyond that. Adequate but not rich.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, the second lists the scope, and the third gives usage guidance. All information is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

The tool is complex in scope but the description clearly enumerates the covered areas. An output schema exists, so return format is documented elsewhere. The only missing context is any mention of prerequisites or potential performance caveats, but that is minor for a read-only diagnostics snapshot. The description sufficiently equips an agent to decide when to call it.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. There is nothing for the description to add about parameters. According to the baseline rule for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate, and the description correctly focuses on output content rather than input.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('full network snapshot'), then enumerates the exact content (interfaces, WLAN, ethernet IP, VLAN, LLDP/CDP, public IP). Clearly distinguishes itself from more granular siblings like get_network_interfaces and get_vlans by framing itself as the comprehensive umbrella tool.

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?

Explicitly says 'Best starting point for network diagnostics', which gives clear context for when to use this tool (initial broad assessment). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'best starting point' phrasing strongly implies that more specific tools are for follow-up queries, so usage guidance is present though not exhaustive.

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