slide_get_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: secret redaction (no IPsec PSK, no WireGuard private key) and the network components returned. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention auth requirements or error behavior, which would be useful given no annotations.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds a necessary behavioral caveat about redaction. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is fairly complete. It conveys what the tool returns (port forwards, IPsec connections, WireGuard peers) and the redaction behavior, which is the key nuance. The main omission is explicit read-only/auth guidance, but the low complexity and clear purpose make this a minor gap.

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 schema already covers network_id with 'Network ID' at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by ID' does not add extra semantic detail such as where to find the ID, format, or validation rules, so it does not elevate the score.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single disaster-recovery network by ID'. It lists the key contents (port forwards, IPsec connections, WireGuard peers), which distinguishes it from the many other get/list siblings and makes its purpose unmistakable.

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 when to use this tool: when you need a single network by ID rather than a list. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or point to alternatives like slide_list_networks for listing use cases. The only sibling reference is about redaction behavior, not routing the agent's choice.

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