slide_get_device_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool returns (network configuration fields) but does not disclose whether the device must be online, whether this is a read-only operation, whether it can fail for offline devices, or any rate-limit/auth considerations. For a getter, the read-only nature is implied but not explicit, and there is no mention of error behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the resource and the specific fields returned. Zero waste; every word 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?

For a simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it tells the agent what it returns. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could add a bit more context about return shape or failure conditions. Still, the tool is simple enough that the description is adequate.

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 100%: the only parameter, device_id, is described as 'Device ID.' The description adds context about what the device_id is used for (fetching network config) but does not add format, validation, or source details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'a device's network configuration', and specifies the content (DNS servers, network mode, gateway/address). It is distinguishable from siblings like slide_get_device (which likely returns general device info) and slide_get_network (which likely returns network-level info), though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implies usage: call this when you need a device's network configuration details. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over slide_get_device or slide_get_network, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. The context is clear enough for a simple getter, but no exclusions or alternatives are given.

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