check_overlaps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Detect overlaps/containment', which indicates a read-only analytical operation. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of overlapping pairs), edge cases, or any limitations. The description is minimally adequate but lacks detailed behavioral context.

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 highly concise, consisting of a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action. However, it could benefit from a slight expansion to improve completeness without sacrificing brevity.

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 simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the primary purpose minimally. It lacks details about input format, behavior for edge cases (e.g., empty array, invalid CIDRs), and return structure. For a straightforward tool, it is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It only mentions 'CIDRs' without specifying the required format (e.g., CIDR notation like '10.0.0.0/24'), array constraints, or example values. The description adds very little beyond the schema field name 'cidrs'.

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 verb 'Detect' and the resource 'CIDRs', specifying the action as checking overlaps and containment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cidr_info (returns info), cidr_summarize (summarizes), and ip_in_subnet (checks IP membership).

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 phrase 'high-leverage sanity check' implies utility for verification, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., before subnet allocation) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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