get_network_status

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: a NIC lacking upstream_id can make the whole response fail, which is a failure mode an agent could not infer from annotations or schema.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields before the parameter caveat. No filler, though the parenthetical error note partially duplicates the schema description.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, and for a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage that is everything an agent needs. Both the happy path and the known failure/retry path are covered.

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 coverage is 100% and the port parameter already documents the eth0 example and the unmapped-NIC retry in the schema itself. The description restates that same workaround rather than adding new semantics, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Состояние сетевых интерфейсов сервера') and enumerates the returned fields (port, switch, VLAN, speed, MAC, connection status), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_server_sensors or get_power_status, though it never names those alternatives as contrasts.

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?

Gives concrete conditional guidance: the optional port narrows the request to one interface, and it should be used when another NIC without upstream_id breaks the response. That is a real when-to-use rule, but there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for adjacent network data.

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