tools_mapcidr

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, what output it returns, or any side effects. The description merely restates the tool name without adding transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. Brevity is not a virtue when no useful information is conveyed; the description needs more content to be effective.

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 has two parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is expected to explain the purpose, parameters, and expected behavior. It does none of these, making it inadequate for an agent to select and use the tool confidently.

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 defines 'cidr' and 'additional_args', but the description does not explain either parameter. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to provide any meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 states the tool executes mapcidr, which implies a CIDR-processing wrapper, but it does not specify what mapcidr actually does or how it differs from sibling tools. It is not a tautology because it names the tool, but it is vague and lacks a clear verb+resource description.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any decision-making support.

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