network_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only operation ('Show') but does not disclose whether elevated privileges are needed, whether the output is real-time or cached, or the format of the output. The absence of anomalies is acceptable, but more detail would benefit an agent.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and lists the key resources. No filler or repetition.

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 tool has no parameters and a moderate number of sibling tools, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it does not mention the output schema or what an agent should expect in return, which would strengthen completeness.

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 zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description trivially covers all parameters (none). The baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools, and the description adds no confusion.

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 verb 'Show' and the resources: 'network interfaces, routes and listening TCP/UDP ports.' It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'system_info' or 'disk_usage', though it could be more precise about the scope (e.g., all vs. specific interfaces).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'diagnose_vps' or 'system_info'. The description implies diagnostic use but does not state prerequisites, scope limitations, or exclusion criteria.

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