calc_subnet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the tool returns multiple fields (network, broadcast, usable hosts, mask), whether it validates input, or how it handles invalid CIDRs. However, the description does indicate what outputs to expect, which is some behavioral context. Given no annotations, a score of 3 reflects the gap in error handling and return format details.

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 that front-loads the tool's purpose and includes a concrete example. No wasted words.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete. However, there is no output schemaasi, and the description does not explain the format of the return value (e.g., whether it's a string or object, and how fields are named). An agent might need to invoke and inspect the result to understand the output. Overall, adequate but with a minor gap.

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 provides 100% coverage for the cidr parameter, including a description that explains what it is and gives an example. The description does add that the input is a CIDR, but this is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is therefore appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: to calculate subnet details (network, broadcast, usable hosts, mask) from a CIDR. It includes a concrete example, making the purpose unmistakable. It is distinct from sibling tools like check_ip_type, which inspects IPs for type, and the calculation tools, none of which are subnet-specific.

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 the tool is for subnet calculations and gives an example of input format. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives, the sibling tools are functionally different (e.g., convert_unit, compute_statistics), so the intended usage is clear enough for an agent.

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