synology_get_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'gets' configuration, but does not mention authentication needs, error behavior, or whether the NAS must be online. This is a significant gap for a tool that may have side effects or access issues.

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 of about seven words, front-loaded with the verb 'get'. It contains no filler and immediately communicates the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description omits any indication of the format or scope of the returned network configuration. It is minimally adequate but could be more complete by mentioning what fields are returned (e.g., IP, netmask, gateway).

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter (device_id), which is described as 'Synology NAS device ID'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'get' and clearly identifies the resource 'network interface configuration' and the target platform 'Synology NAS'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qnap_get_network or proxmox_get_network.

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 implies usage when one needs Synology NAS network interface configuration, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. Sibling comparisons are not mentioned, leaving the usage context implicit.

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