get_network_info

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.). The mention of 'legacy param.cgi' hints at implementation but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as latency, error handling, or deprecation status. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence of 15 words. It directly states the purpose and method without any redundant or tertiary information. Every word earns its place.

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 zero parameters and annotations covering behavioral hints, the description could better specify the output format (e.g., key-value pairs or JSON structure). It mentions examples (IP, DNS, hostname) but lacks completeness about what exactly is returned. Adequate but with a 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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Per guidelines, zero parameters baseline is 4. The description does not add any parameter semantics because there are none, which is acceptable.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'network parameters (IP, DNS, hostname, etc.)' via the method 'legacy param.cgi'. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_network_config' which may use a different method.

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 mentions 'via legacy param.cgi' but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_network_config'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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