pt_auto_address

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

Annotations only supply openWorldHint=false, so the description carries the load, and it does well: it discloses the subnet allocation rules (LANs from lan_pool, /30s for router-only links), address assignment order, DHCP behavior, overwrite semantics, and dry-run mode. It omits prerequisites (a live PT session/topology must exist) and whether overwrite clobbers host configs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and efficiently dense; nearly every clause carries information about allocation or toggles. It is a long, somewhat run-on block of parentheticals, but the density is justified for nine parameters.

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 nine-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the bulk of decision-relevant behavior (allocation scheme, routing, dry run, overwrite). Gaps remain for dns, loopbacks, the routing enum, and required preconditions, which prevents a 5.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains most parameters: lan_pool, lan_prefix (/lan_prefix, right-sized when null), p2p_pool, dhcp, overwrite, and apply. It leaves dns and loopbacks entirely unexplained, and routing is only implied ('generate routing') without describing the enum options.

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 and resource ('Address the live topology and generate routing') and immediately scopes it to computation 'from the actual cabling'. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like net_subnet/net_vlsm (offline calculators) and pt_configure_hosts.

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?

Gives clear operational context: it works on the live topology, keeps existing addresses unless overwrite=true, and apply=false previews the plan and configs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not to use it (e.g. use net_subnet for planning without a live lab).

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