plan_subnets

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: 'deterministic, no network calls' suggests a safe computation. However, it doesn't clarify side effects, permissions, or whether the tool modifies any state.

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 plus an example, with no filler. The key information is front-loaded, and the example effectively illustrates usage.

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?

The description covers inputs well but lacks information about the output format or return value. Given no output schema, describing what the tool returns would improve completeness for a planning tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains parent_cidr as parent IPv4 block, requirements as array of objects with vlan_id, name, and hosts/prefix, including aliases. This provides essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 allocates VLAN subnets from a parent IPv4 block, specifying determinism and no network calls. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ping, traceroute, or dns_lookup, which are network diagnostics.

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 provides an example and notes to use either 'hosts' or 'prefix' per requirement, giving some usage guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions relative to alternatives.

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