summarize_cidrs

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the core behavior (collapsing to minimal supernets) but omits details like input validation, handling of non-overlapping CIDRs, or output format. Adequate for a simple tool but lacks depth.

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 wasted words. Every part of the description adds value.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers the basic operation but lacks details on return value, edge cases, and prerequisites. With no output schema and minimal parameter info, the description is adequate but not fully 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 single parameter 'cidrs' has 0% schema description coverage. The description only says 'list of CIDRs', which minimally explains the expected string format but does not specify constraints like valid CIDR notation, allowed address families, or behavior with duplicates.

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 specific verb 'collapse' and specifies resource 'list of CIDRs' and outcome 'minimal set of covering supernets'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like find_gaps or subtract_subnet.

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 implies usage when needing to combine overlapping CIDRs into supernets, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool comparisons. However, the context is clear enough for a straightforward computation tool.

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