get_network_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' makes clear this is a non-mutating retrieval operation, and the parenthetical indicates what data will be returned. However, it does not describe output format, potential response size, or any other operational caveats.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds precise subcategories in parentheses. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 zero-parameter, read-only configuration getter, the description is largely complete: it names the domain and distinguishes it from status, topology, and wireless configuration siblings. It lacks an output schema and explicit usage boundaries, but neither is critical for this simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description is not required to explain parameter behavior. The parenthetical still adds useful semantic detail about what configuration domains the result covers, which helps an agent understand the tool's purpose.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Get logical network configurations' and immediately clarifies the scope with concrete categories (VLANs, subnets, DHCP). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_network_status, get_network_topology, and get_wlan_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?

The description gives clear context: this is the tool to use when retrieving logical network settings such as VLANs, subnets, or DHCP. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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