explore_network

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to disclose safety. It adds context about returning a hierarchical view with utilization percentages, and clarifies that depth controls detail. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly say whether the operation is safe or has side effects, but annotations cover 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 description is well-organized with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples) and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or repetition of schema details. Examples are compact and illustrative.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 optional params, output schema), the description is complete: it explains the hierarchy, usage boundaries, parameter semantics, and return expectations. Sibling tools are distinguished, and examples show typical calls. No missing critical information.

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 carries full responsibility for explaining parameters. It does so effectively: scope is described as optional IP space name with examples ('prod', 'corp'), depth explains the three levels, and limit explains default and meaning. Examples illustrate usage combinations.

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: 'Browse the IP hierarchy tree (Spaces → Blocks → Subnets) with utilization data.' It uses a specific verb ('browse') and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming alternatives for other use cases, such as get_network_summary and search_infrastructure.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'USE THIS to navigate and drill into network structure.' It also states when NOT to use it and points to alternatives: 'For executive dashboards use get_network_summary(). For keyword search use search_infrastructure().' This exceeds basic requirements.

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