verify_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the types of information inspected (errors, warnings, flags, cooked geometry counts) and references key return fields (healthy, error_nodes), implying a read-only verification action. However, it does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or describe any side effects, though the language strongly implies a read-only check. It also does not explain the full return structure or pagination, but for a verification tool this is acceptable.

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 two short paragraphs with a clear args section. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every sentence adds value (purpose, usage, parameter explanation). No redundancy or fluff.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides the essential information: what it does, when to use it, how to interpret results (healthy/error_nodes), and the parameter format. It does not enumerate all return fields (e.g., warnings, flags, geometry counts) but does imply them in the first sentence. Given the tool's simplicity, this is nearly complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently by providing the parameter name, its meaning ('Network to verify'), and a concrete example ('/obj/geo1'). This gives the agent full clarity on what to supply.

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 specific verb ('inspect'), a resource ('every node in a network'), and detailed scope ('errors, warnings, flags, and the display node's cooked geometry counts'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_error_nodes or get_node_errors_detailed, which have narrower or different purposes.

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 gives explicit usage timing ('after building or modifying a network') and a clear workflow directive (if healthy is false or error_nodes is non-empty, fix before confirming). It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke it. Missing explicit alternatives slightly lowers the score.

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