ndfc_get_network_preview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool returns a configuration preview per switch, which is helpful. However, it does not mention side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation is safe/read-only. The description is somewhat transparent but leaves significant gaps.

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 concise (one paragraph) and well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required string parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. However, it lacks information on return format details, error handling, or prerequisites, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists fabric_name and network_name with brief explanations ('Name of the fabric', 'Name of the network'), adding minimal meaning beyond the schema titles. No details on allowed values, formats, or constraints 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 tool's purpose: 'Get configuration preview for a specific network deployment.' It identifies the key parameters (fabric_name, network_name) and the output (dict with preview). While it distinguishes the general purpose from siblings like ndfc_get_networks, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar preview or network tools.

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 versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, constraints, or when not to use it. It simply states what the tool does without context for selection.

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