Diagnose connectivity

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

Despite readOnlyHint already covering safety, the description adds substantial operational context: it reads live state end-to-end, walks the path bidirectionally, issues a real ping, returns coded findings with evidence, redacts output in hint-only mode to device/interface/area plus a ref, and notes 10-60 second latency. That is exactly the kind of behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and subsequent sentences carry distinct payloads (behaviors, output shape, mode rules, latency). It is dense but each clause informs invocation; only minor trimming would be possible.

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?

With no output schema, the description still specifies the return structure (code, device, interface, evidence, concept) and the redaction variant. Combined with the latency warning and the tutor_hint handoff, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by confirming the ping is a real confirmation step and by framing the diagnostic as source-to-destination path traversal, which clarifies how source and destination are used together. It stops short of covering destination format variations beyond 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?

Opens with a specific verb and problem statement — "Explain why one device can or cannot reach another" — that no sibling (get_topology, get_device_state, run_command) covers. It also enumerates the data it inspects and the form of the answer, so an agent can distinguish it from raw-state tools without opening the schema.

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 explicit mode-based guidance: in tutor mode use findings to ask guiding questions rather than pasting the fix, and pass a finding to tutor_hint for a graded hint. It does not explicitly state when to prefer get_device_state or get_topology over this diagnostic, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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