Dpanel Network Detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses nothing: no indication that this is a read-only lookup, no error behavior for a missing network, no auth or permission context. The four-character description adds zero behavioral information.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of what is retrieved or what the parameter means.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the definition still omits the input semantics, usage context, and any behavioral notes for a tool with zero annotation coverage. It is not complete enough for reliable selection or 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'name' parameter, and it does not. It never clarifies whether 'name' is a network name, an ID, or a partial match, nor whether it must correspond to an existing network.

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 '网络详情' merely restates the tool name and title, giving no verb or scope beyond the bare resource. It does not distinguish this from the sibling dpanel_network_list, which an agent would need in order to pick the right one.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of a prerequisite network existing, and no reference to the list tool as the alternative. Usage is only weakly implied by the word 'detail' in the name.

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