Get All Links in the Network

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and the description reinforces that by saying it only lists links. It adds the pairing semantics of the output (device/port pairs plus cable type), but since an output schema exists this is largely redundant with structured data and no further behavioral caveats are given.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the operation and output shape, followed by three short example utterances that each illustrate a distinct use. No filler or restated title.

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 zero parameters and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies everything needed to select and call the tool. A mention of how to distinguish it from get_devices_in_network would make it fully complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 ('List every cable in the network') and immediately clarifies the result shape: device/port pairs with cable type. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_devices_in_network and get_interfaces_for_device, which return nodes and per-device port data rather than edges.

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 three quoted example queries give concrete usage contexts, including a topology-mapping case and a per-device adjacency question. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the top band.

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