get_network_element

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a key behavioral trait: the tool may fail, and the agent must report errors honestly. However, it does not disclose other traits like idempotency, rate limits, or whether it is read-only (reasonable given the purpose).

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 main purpose, followed by a critical usage warning. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

The description covers the input and a behavioral warning, but does not explain the return value structure or what 'details' are included (no output schema). For a retrieval tool, this leaves some uncertainty about the information provided.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters having minimal descriptions ('Element ID', 'Type of element'). The description adds the list of valid types and a warning, but does not deepen parameter meaning (e.g., format of ID, case sensitivity). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already describes the parameters.

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 function: 'Get details of a specific element by type and ID', and enumerates all supported element types (node, subnode, VLAN, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_client or get_invoice, which operate on different entities.

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 includes a strong behavioral instruction about not fabricating data on failure, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_clients or get_network_status). The usage context is implied by the element types, but no direct comparison or exclusion is given.

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