network_get_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get detailed information' without explaining what 'detailed' means, safety (read-only), or potential errors. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 very short (two sentences plus parameter list), which is concise, but the parameter descriptions are redundant and add no value. The structure is minimal but not efficient in conveying useful information.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not mention what information is returned (e.g., network details like name, type, configuration). It lacks usage examples, error handling, or relationship to other tools, making it incomplete for an agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema titles. Stating 'The site ID' and 'The network ID' is essentially redundant with the parameter names and titles. It fails to explain how to obtain these IDs or any constraints.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific network', which specifies the verb (Get) and resource (specific network). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like network_list_networks (list all) and network_update_network (update).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for different network subresources (devices, clients, wifi, etc.), it fails to explain when to choose this one over others.

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