validate_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses useful behavioral traits: it checks overlap against connected router session subnets, accepts multiple input formats, and reports detailed network calculations. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or list permission requirements, but its validation framing makes the non-destructive nature clear.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then details formats, purpose values, and reporting behavior. Every sentence adds useful information, and the examples are compact and directly relevant.

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?

Despite low schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers input formats, parameter semantics, conditional behavior, and reporting output. Since an output schema exists, it does not need to fully define return values, and the description is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents value syntax with examples, comma-separated input, the meaning of purpose='interface' and purpose='network', and the conditional overlap behavior when name is a connected router session. All three parameters are given meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Check') and resource ('IP addresses / subnets') and frames the tool as a pre-use validation step, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that configure or apply changes. It also explains the user-facing purpose of explaining results.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool BEFORE using the addresses, giving a clear usage context. It also explains the meaning of purpose='interface' vs purpose='network', though it does not name alternatives or explicit exclusions.

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