Verify Network Parallelism

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: it 'fails' under specified conditions (count below minExpectedCount or span exceeding maxWindowMs), which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradictions detected.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core assertion and key conditions. Every word adds value; no unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 complexity (nested matcher object, multiple parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which explains return values), the description covers the essential logic: assertion condition and failure criteria. It could briefly explain matcher behavior, but the schema handles that.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions minExpectedCount and maxWindowMs in context but adds no new semantic insight beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score 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 uses a specific verb (Assert) and resource (network requests starting in a time window). It includes an example (SDUI queries) and mentions key parameters (minExpectedCount, maxWindowMs), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like verify_network_sequence or verify_network_performance.

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 implies use for checking parallel request timing. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the sibling tool names (e.g., verify_network_absent, verify_network_deduplication) provide strong contextual cues, making the intended use case clear.

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