net_summarize

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, closed-world), and the description adds real semantic context beyond them: it discloses that two distinct results come back (an exact collapsed set and one supernet) plus the redundant-coverage amount. It doesn't specify error behavior for invalid or non-contiguous input, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the payload it returns; the parenthetical earns its place by flagging the extra-coverage metric. It is telegraphic but free of filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a fair job of explaining what is returned, so return-value documentation is adequate. The input contract is the weak point: with one undocumented parameter at 0% schema coverage, an agent still lacks the CIDR-string format needed to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and nothing in the description explains the single 'networks' parameter — notably that it expects a list of CIDR strings. The wording 'collapsed set' weakly implies a plural input, but format, ordering and contiguity expectations are undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (summarize) and resource (networks/routes) and describes the two outputs produced: the exact collapsed set and the single covering supernet with extra coverage. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the adjacent subnet/VLSM/split siblings to mark the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The agent must infer from the word 'summarization' that it applies to aggregating multiple networks rather than splitting or allocating them, which is exactly the ambiguity the sibling tools net_subnet, net_split and net_vlsm create.

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