network_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes a read-only operation (showing information) but does not mention potential side effects, whether sandboxes must be running, latency implications, or any permissions required. The description is minimal and leaves many behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 concise: two short sentences for purpose and context, plus a brief return description. Every sentence adds value with no redundancies. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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?

Given that the tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to fully explain return values. It states 'Network info with IPs and connectivity status,' which is sufficient. However, it omits any mention of authentication, rate limits, or scope (e.g., does it return info for all sandboxes or only those the user can access?). Still, for a simple informational tool, it is reasonably complete.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (no parameters to document). Therefore, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details since there are none.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show network information for all sandboxes including IP addresses and pairwise connectivity.' It specifies a concrete verb ('show') and a specific resource ('network information for all sandboxes'). This distinctly sets it apart from sibling tools like 'health', 'status', or 'stats', which do not focus on network details.

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 provides usage context: 'Useful for multi-sandbox workflows where services need to communicate.' This implies when to use it (when checking inter-sandbox connectivity). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives, but among the sibling tools, none directly overlap with this network-specific functionality.

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