translate_communities

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that results may have known=false, instructs not to guess meanings, distinguishes inferred conventions from authoritative definitions, and explains the owner AS resolution and matched_by field. This is far beyond a minimal description.

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 dense but every sentence adds meaningful detail: examples, output semantics, convention inference, and wildcard matching. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear paragraph breaks to separate conceptual overview from result-field nuances.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, what inputs look like, what fields come back, and how to interpret ambiguous or inferred results. There is no major gap an agent would need to guess about before invoking the tool.

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 schema only defines an array of strings with no description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides concrete examples of valid inputs and explains what each community string represents. It could add more detail about input constraints like accepted formats or limits, but for a single-parameter list-of-strings tool the examples and context are sufficient.

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 ('translate') and resource ('raw BGP community strings'), with concrete examples such as '3356:2065' and '1299:2731'. It clearly distinguishes the tool's function from the broader set of network-analysis sibling tools, and the stated output meaning goes well beyond a restatement of the name.

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 makes the intended use clear: when you have raw BGP community strings and need their meanings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool is specific enough that no obvious sibling competes with it, and the context provided is sufficient for an agent to recognize when to use it.

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