Network Scan

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds value by detailing the probing process (ports 502 and 1883) and verification via Modbus, providing context beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, zero wasted words. Efficiently communicates key information.

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 the presence of an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers essential information. It could mention what the output contains (e.g., list of discovered devices), but the output schema likely handles that. Still sufficiently complete for a scanning 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 description coverage is 100%, so description largely repeats schema. It adds minor context (subnet format example, scanning range .1-.254) and explains auto-detection, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond 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's action (scan network), target (Victron GX devices), and methods (probes Modbus TCP and MQTT, verifies via Modbus). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying network scanning for unknown IP addresses.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when you don't know the IP address') and provides two usage options (specify subnet or auto-detect). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context from sibling tools helps.

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