get_network_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds value by enumerating the returned attributes (port, switch, VLAN, speed, MAC, connection status), which goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent interpret results. No contradictions.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the main purpose and immediately lists the key data points. Every word is informative with no filler.

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 supplies essential information about the content of the response (the listed network attributes). It does not explicitly state whether the result is an array or single object, but the plural 'интерфейсов' implies multiple. For a simple read-only getter, this is largely sufficient.

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 covers the single parameter 'id' with its description ('ID сервера'), so the description does not need to add more. The description itself provides no additional parameter meaning, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: it returns the state of server network interfaces, listing concrete fields (port, switch, VLAN, speed, MAC, connection status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools like get_power_status or get_server_sensors, which target different aspects.

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 clear context—it is for retrieving network interface status—but does not explicitly state exclusions or mention alternative tools. Since the name and description unambiguously convey the use case, it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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