ndfc_get_network_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the return type (dict with deployment state and errors) but does not explicitly declare if the operation is read-only or has side effects. Given that it's a 'get' operation, it is likely safe, but the description could be more explicit about non-destructive behavior or any required permissions.

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 exceptionally concise: three sentences covering purpose, arguments, and return value. No fluff or redundancy. Every sentence serves a clear informational purpose.

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 is a simple status check with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview: it gets status for a specific network, expects fabric and network names, and returns a dict with deployment state and errors. It does not cover potential pitfalls (e.g., invalid names, connectivity issues) or required prerequisites, but overall it is sufficiently informative for an agent to invoke 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 has 0% description coverage (no property descriptions), so the description must compensate. The description adds minimal value beyond the property names: it repeats 'Name of the fabric' and 'Name of the network', which is slightly more than the schema's titles but still very generic. No format constraints, examples, or validation hints are provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate for this level of added meaning.

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 resource ('deployment status for a specific network in a fabric'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ndfc_get_networks (which lists networks) and ndfc_get_deployment_history (which provides history). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 context: use this tool to get status of a specific network. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist. For example, it does not compare with ndfc_get_network_preview or other similar tools. No examples or exclusion criteria provided.

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