set_network_access

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Change' implies mutation, but the description does not say whether the change is persistent, what happens to active connections, whether it requires a restart, or what 'real' network access means versus any other kind. This is a significant gap for a tool that can sever connectivity.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource. It could earn a 5 with a brief consequence note, but as written it is efficient and on point.

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 tool is a network toggle with no annotations and no output schema. The description omits important context: what 'real' network access means, whether the change is reversible, whether it affects the entire Docker computer or just one container, and what impact it has on running processes. For a tool that can disrupt connectivity, this is incomplete.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter 'enabled' with a clear description. The tool description adds little semantic value beyond labeling the access as 'real', which is not explained. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('change') and resource ('the running Docker computer's real network access'). It is distinguishable from all sibling tools, none of which deal with network access. The qualifier 'real' is slightly ambiguous but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling list makes it obvious this is the only network-related tool, the description does not mention prerequisites, expected side effects, or conditions under which enabling/disabling network access is appropriate.

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