network_latency_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting concurrent pinging and the automatic diagnosis categories (router issue / ISP issue / congestion / normal). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first describes what the tool does and the diagnosis output, the second gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, targets, behavior, and usage context. It also explains return values (latency, reachability, diagnosis) implicitly. The tool is simple and the description is 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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about the fixed targets (gateway, Cloudflare DNS, Google DNS), which is useful even though there are no parameters to document.

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 pings three specific targets (local gateway, Cloudflare DNS, Google DNS) concurrently and returns per-target latency and reachability, with an automatic diagnosis. This specific verb+resource combination clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_network_usage or get_network_connections.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the user asks if their internet is slow or to locate where latency is introduced.' It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the usage context is clear and sufficient for a network diagnostic tool.

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