sysknife_get_network_status

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and not open-world behavior. The description adds useful context that this reports LIVE runtime state rather than saved config, and it lists the categories of state returned. It does not describe output formatting or permission requirements, but those gaps are minor for a no-param read-only status tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action and scope. Every clause adds useful differentiation, especially the live-vs-saved-config distinction and the named alternative.

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?

For a simple no-param read-only status tool with no output schema, the description provides enough: what it reports, that it is live/runtime, that it is read-only, and which alternative handles saved config. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 reinforces that there are no params, which is consistent with the empty 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?

States a specific read action and precisely defines its scope: live network state including interfaces, IP addresses, and connection state. It explicitly distinguishes runtime status from saved configuration, which separates it from sysknife_netplan_get_config.

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?

Explains that this tool takes no parameters and is for live runtime status, not saved configuration. It names the appropriate alternative for saved Ubuntu network config, making the when-to-use boundary explicit.

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