network_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'using netifd' as a technical implementation detail but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, what the return format is, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a status tool.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Get', and contains no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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 simple (one optional parameter) and the description gives the basic purpose, but it lacks details about the output or what status fields are returned. Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate, but it does not, leaving gaps for an agent expecting details about the result.

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 description covers the 'interface' parameter fully (100% coverage), including its default and examples. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing that it targets a specific interface, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool gets the status of a specific UCI network interface, using a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('network interface'), and scope ('specific'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like network_interfaces, which presumably lists all interfaces.

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 implies usage context by focusing on a 'specific' interface, contrasting with the broader scope of sibling tools like network_interfaces. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it when querying one interface.

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