cidr

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

The description discloses the expected outputs (network address, broadcast, host range, number of hosts) which gives the agent an idea of what to expect. However, it doesn't address invalid input handling, IPv6 support, or its read-only nature. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it partially fulfills that.

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 functional description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it's prefixed with '[PRO — 3 trial uses left]', which is irrelevant to the tool's behavior and could confuse an agent. This meta-information reduces the structure quality.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description lists the output fields, providing adequate context. However, it doesn't specify the output format (e.g., JSON structure) or edge-case behaviors, leaving some ambiguity. Overall, it's reasonably complete for its simplicity.

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 already describes the 'notation' parameter as 'CIDR notation (e.g. "192.168.1.0/24")' with 100% coverage. The description doesn't add any additional parameter details beyond restating that it parses CIDR. Therefore, it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 function: 'Parse CIDR notation and show network address, broadcast, host range, and number of hosts.' This uses a specific verb (parse) and resource (CIDR notation) and even lists the expected outputs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ip_info by focusing on CIDR parsing rather than general IP info.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. The sibling list includes ip_info which could be an alternative, but the description doesn't address it.

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