network_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by clarifying the data is a static configuration snapshot rather than a live reading and by scoping which interface attributes are reported.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, followed by the single most useful redirection. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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, so return values need no explanation; the description instead supplies the scoping (static config vs live metrics) that an agent needs to pick correctly among the status siblings. Complete for a zero-parameter read 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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to explain parameter usage, and it introduces no misleading parameter-like wording.

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 resource (static network configuration) and enumerates exactly what it covers: hostname, gateway, DNS, per-interface IP/subnet, MAC, link status, speed/duplex, MTU. The parenthetical '(static configuration)' disambiguates it from live-metric tools, and it explicitly names the sibling system_utilization as the place for throughput.

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?

Gives a clear routing signal: use system_utilization for live throughput, this tool for static configuration. There is no explicit statement of when this tool is preferred over e.g. system_info or hardware_power, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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