arch_network_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that the tool only 'queries' data, making the read-only nature clear. Mentioning nmcli adds context about the underlying mechanism, though it does not detail output structure or potential edge cases.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Query' and contains no filler or redundant information, making it optimally concise.

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 simplicity of a zero-param read-only query tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It does not explain return values (handled by the output schema) and does not mention any limitations, but none are evident from the schema or sibling context.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds value by naming what will be queried, compensating for the lack of parameter definitions. The baseline for no parameters is 4, which is appropriate here.

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 'Query' and clearly identifies the resources: active network connections, Wi-Fi, and Ethernet devices. It also names the underlying command (nmcli), distinguishing this tool from sibling system utilities that focus on other domains.

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 the tool is for checking network status via nmcli, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There are no sibling network tools, so this is a minor gap; however, no exclusions or contextual triggers are provided.

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