Network Inspect Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, and the description adds nothing further — no note on error behavior for unknown network names, no scoping to local vs. remote networks. With annotations covering the safety profile the bar is lower, but the description contributes essentially zero behavioral context.

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 zero waste. It is efficient rather than padded, though it sits at the edge of under-specification given the tool set it lives in.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations declare the read-only profile, so return values and safety do not need spelling out. Still, for a tool embedded among many inspect/list pairs, the description omits the one thing an agent needs — the relationship to network_list_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?

There is a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('Network name or ID'), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for a one-param tool.

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 ('Get detailed information about a network'), and 'detailed' implicitly separates it from the sibling network_list_tool. However, it never names that sibling or clarifies what 'detailed information' actually covers, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus network_list_tool, and no mention of preconditions such as requiring the network to exist or be attached to a container. The agent must infer that this is the drill-down counterpart to the list tool.

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