vnet_show

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Show details,' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or error conditions (e.g., if the VNet does not exist). The lack of transparency beyond the basic function is a gap.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose followed by two short parameter definitions. Every word earns its place, and the purpose is front-loaded. No wasted text.

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 read tool with two parameters and an output schema (present but not shown), the description is adequate but not complete. It mentions included information (subnets and peerings) but does not describe the full return structure, prerequisites (e.g., VNet must exist), or common errors. Given the low complexity, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description provides the only parameter definitions: 'name: Virtual network name' and 'resource_group: Resource group containing the VNet.' While these add meaning beyond the schema titles, they are minimal. The baseline is 3 because the description compensates but does not enrich parameter understanding significantly.

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 uses a specific verb 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource as a virtual network, including subnets and peerings. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vnet_list (which lists VNets) and vnet_subnet_show (which shows specific subnet details), making the tool's purpose 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 implicitly indicates that the tool is for viewing details of a specific virtual network, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., vnet_list for listing all VNets) or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but lacks explicit usage guidance.

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