node_network_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It does reveal cluster-wide scope ('all nodes') and what signals are examined, but says nothing about read-only safety, permissions required, whether it contacts a live cluster, or failure behavior for unreachable nodes.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action first and the inspected signals after the dash. Zero filler, nothing to trim.

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 parameterless read tool this is nearly sufficient: it tells the agent what is checked and over what scope. The only real gap is that with no output schema, the agent cannot predict the response shape or whether per-node results are aggregated or listed.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline 4 case — there is no parameter semantics to explain and the empty schema is consistent with a cluster-wide status sweep. Nothing in the description contradicts that.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource (check network status of all nodes) and enumerates the two things inspected: NetworkUnavailable conditions and PodCIDR allocations. That clearly separates it from the pod-, service-, DNS- and policy-focused siblings, though it never explicitly names a sibling it contrasts with.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer it belongs in node-level network troubleshooting, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of when to prefer analyze_network_policy, debug_dns_config, or check_service_endpoints instead, and no prerequisites noted.

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