phpipam.subnets.get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining precedence when both 'id' and 'cidr' are given, behavior when neither is provided, or failure modes. It also does not explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation or describe the return format, which is critical given no output schema.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. No unnecessary words or redundancy. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key parameter distinction.

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 relatively simple, but the description leaves important gaps: it does not indicate that one of 'id' or 'cidr' is required (schema lists them as optional), nor does it describe the return value. With no output schema and no annotations, these omissions make the description less complete for an agent needing to invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, but the description adds meaningful semantic value by stating 'by ID or CIDR notation', clarifying that 'id' and 'cidr' are alternative identifiers rather than both being required. This simple additional context helps the agent understand the intended parameter relationship beyond the schema.

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 'Get a specific subnet by ID or CIDR notation' clearly states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('subnet'), and the scope ('specific'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'subnets.list' that return multiple subnets. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 for retrieving a single subnet, contrasted with listing multiple, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusions. It also does not state that exactly one of 'id' or 'cidr' should be provided, leaving the parameter selection partially ambiguous. The sibling tool names offer context, but the description itself lacks direct guidance.

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