analyze_network_issues

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and description reinforces this with 'Read-only operation'. It also discloses aggregation behavior and output nature ('AI-friendly summary of what may be wrong'), adding useful context beyond the annotation. No contradictions or hidden side effects.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by alternatives and parameter details. The Args section partially duplicates schema documentation, but overall it remains concise and scannable.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating the output is a structured report/summary of potential issues. It also documents both optional parameters and gives enough context to invoke the tool correctly. Minor omissions like exact response fields are acceptable given the 'AI-friendly summary' characterization.

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%; both site and device are already fully described in the input schema. The description repeats this information without adding deeper semantics like format, constraints, or interactions between the parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Analyze'), resource ('a site'), and output ('structured report of potential issues'). It enumerates the aggregated data sources and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_alarms, get_device_health_summary, and get_optimization_recommendations, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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?

Description explicitly names when to use alternatives: get_alarms for raw alarms, get_device_health_summary for device-only status, and get_optimization_recommendations for improvements rather than fault reports. This gives clear routing guidance and exclusions.

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