cidr_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool computes mask, wildcard, usable range, and counts, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only, safe operation. The NOC context implies safety, but explicit statement would improve transparency.

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 very concise: two sentences with a bulleted list of use cases. Every word adds value, and the core purpose is front-loaded. No wasted text.

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 no output schema, the description does not fully specify the return format or structure. It mentions outputs (mask, wildcard, etc.) but not how they are returned. The single parameter is not described in detail. Overall, it is adequate but leaves some gaps for an AI agent.

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 explain the parameter. While the tool name and input schema indicate a CIDR string, the description does not clarify the expected format (e.g., '192.168.1.0/24') or provide examples. This leaves the agent needing to infer the parameter usage.

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 provides CIDR primitives for IPv4/IPv6, specifically mask, wildcard, usable range, and counts. It includes NOC use cases that distinguish it from sibling tools like subnet_split, plan_subnets, or check_overlaps.

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 NOC use cases (validate mask math, answer usable range for VLAN subnet) that guide when to use the tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but the context is clear enough.

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