get_network_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It says 'Return a summary' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose side effects, error behavior if the network is not loaded, or any rate limits. For a read tool this is acceptable but minimal.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and immediately lists what is included. There is no fluff; every clause adds meaning. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description names the categories of data returned but not their format or structure. It gives an agent enough to know what to expect conceptually, but lacks detail on exact fields or units, which might be necessary for downstream processing. It is adequate but could be richer.

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 only parameter, networkId, is fully described in the input schema as 'The network id returned by load_network.' The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return a summary') and identifies the resource ('loaded network'), plus enumerates the exact content ('counts, simulation timing, units, quality type, and node/link id previews'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_nodes or get_links which target specific elements, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 states 'of a loaded network', implying the network must be loaded first, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., when you need a high-level overview rather than detailed node results). No exclusions or preferred contexts are given.

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