get_network_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'This is a read-only operation with no side effects' and mentions that loopback and virtual interfaces are included, giving clear behavioral expectations.

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 concise (about 6 lines), front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidelines, then behavioral transparency, and finally output details. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the output format (Markdown report grouped by interface) and the fields shown (status, speed, IPs, traffic counters), making it complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the returned Markdown report contains, going beyond the empty schema.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('all network interfaces'), and clearly lists what information is displayed (IP addresses, link speed, status, traffic counters). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_open_ports' which focuses on ports, not general network interface info.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('check network connectivity, find IP addresses, investigate throughput') and when not to use it ('Not suitable for packet-level analysis or firewall rule inspection'), guiding the agent to appropriate alternatives.

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