get_network_configuration

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions specific config categories (interrupt moderation, etc.), suggesting read-only intent. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or list any side effects.

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?

Description is brief (two sentences) but front-loads key information. The first sentence lists main items, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet list). Minimal waste, though slightly informal.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description omits when to set include_advanced to false or any prerequisites. For a simple tool with one optional parameter, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 'include_advanced' parameter. With only one parameter, the description should clarify its effect, but it does not, leaving the agent to rely solely on the 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?

Description clearly states what tool retrieves (network adapters, drivers, IP configuration, latency-relevant settings) and provides specific examples. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings and the informal tone slightly reduces clarity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool or when not to. The description implies relevance for gaming/performance but does not state alternatives or exclusion criteria. Sibling tools are listed but not compared.

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