verify_network

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and does not meet it. The presence of a force_cook parameter hints this tool may trigger cooking (a side effect with real cost), yet the description never says whether it is read-only, whether it cooks nodes, or whether errors abort the inspection. It also gives no sense of cost or behavior on large networks where every node is visited.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, but its brevity comes partly from omission rather than precision, so it lands below top marks.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description has to cover behavior and returns and does not. An agent cannot know what the inspection yields (a list of errored nodes? a boolean?) or what force_cook changes. For a tool that walks an entire network and can trigger a cook, this is materially under-specified.

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% across both parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'Cook state' gestures vaguely at force_cook without explaining what forcing a cook does or how it differs from a plain inspection, and parent_path (the required root of the scan) is never mentioned or given a format. This is the weakest dimension.

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 gives a concrete verb and scope: inspect every node in a network for errors and cook state. An agent can tell this is a network-wide validation pass rather than a node builder. It stops short of differentiating itself from siblings like get_network_overview, and 'inspect' is a softer verb than the tool's own name 'verify', but the intent is still legible.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as get_network_overview or get_top_network_info, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer the trigger condition from the name alone. Only the implied 'after building a network, check it' reading exists.

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