get_network_info

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read-only operation but fails to mention key details like whether root permissions are required, if the tool runs remotely via SSH, or what happens if the server parameter points to an unreachable machine. The minimal transparency is acceptable for a simple info tool but leaves gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that quickly conveys the tool's purpose and output components. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, with no redundant or extra 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?

Given the low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately lists what the output includes. However, it omits context about the server parameter’s role and potential errors, which would enhance completeness for an agent executing remotely.

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 input schema documents the optional 'server' parameter with a description, but the tool description itself adds no extra meaning about its effect. Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter is not missing, but the description misses an opportunity to clarify, e.g., that it fetches network info from a different server if specified.

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 the tool retrieves network configuration including specific elements like interfaces (IP, MAC, speed), routing table, and default gateway. It unambiguously defines the resource and output, distinguishing it from sibling system info tools that focus on disk, memory, or users.

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 like get_disk_health or get_system_info. It lacks explicit context for choosing this tool, such as when network diagnostics are needed or when other info tools would be more appropriate.

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