prtg_get_probe_network_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not explicitly state that it is safe or non-mutating, nor does it describe error behavior, authentication requirements, or the exact format of the returned data. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the name and title already imply.

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 sentence that is both concise and informative. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds a clarifying parenthetical that enriches meaning without padding. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary detail.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable hint of the returned data ('connectivity details') but remains vague about the structure or content of the response. It doesn't specify whether the result is a status, a list, or a detailed report, leaving some ambiguity for the agent. However, given the tool's simplicity, this level of completeness is borderline adequate, scoring 3.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, with a clear description ('Probe ID (from prtg_list_probes)') that adds provenance. The tool description itself does not elaborate on parameters, but the schema already fully documents the parameter, so the description doesn't need to compensate. Baseline 3 applies given high schema coverage.

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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('network information for a probe'), with a clarifying parenthetical that specifies it's the probe host's own connectivity details. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like prtg_get_probe, which likely returns general probe configuration, making the 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over its siblings, such as prtg_get_probe. It doesn't mention alternatives or indicate situations where this tool is preferred (e.g., when you need connectivity details rather than general probe info). The absence of any usage context leaves the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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