z2m_network_map

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses non-obvious behavioral traits: the scan reduces network responsiveness and can take 10 seconds to several minutes. It also clarifies the return shape, which is not in the 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?

Three sentences: purpose, performance warning, and usage guidance. Front-loaded with the core action, each sentence adds distinct value, 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?

Despite no output schema, the description outlines the return structure and performance characteristics. It covers the main usage caveats and alternatives, making it comprehensive for a complex scanning tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds only a minor reference to 'unless raw is set,' which duplicates the schema's raw parameter description. No significant new parameter semantics are provided.

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 (scan mesh topology) and the specific outputs (per-device parent, depth, link quality, route count, orphaned/weak devices). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming z2m_health_report and z2m_list_devices as alternatives for link quality.

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 states when to use (deliberately, not routinely) and what to prefer instead (z2m_health_report or z2m_list_devices for per-device link quality). Also includes a warning about performance impact, providing clear context for usage.

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