Network Inspector: Status

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

Annotations already signal readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral context beyond those hints: the gating 'ready' condition, the need to relay notice/remediation when not ready, and the fact that reads return nothing useful until ready is true.

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?

Two well-structured sentences front-load the purpose and then give actionable gating instructions. The slight repetition that reads are not useful until ready is true reinforces a critical operational constraint rather than being wasted words.

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 enumerates the key status dimensions an agent needs: ready state, connected clients, packet/event counts, MITM state, and prerequisites remediation. It also gives the conditional workflow for acting on ready=false, making the tool fully understandable for a zero-parameter status probe.

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 accepts zero parameters, and the schema covers 100% of them trivially. With no parameters, the description has no parameter meaning to add and instead focuses on status output semantics, which is the appropriate 0-parameter baseline behavior.

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 specific verb-resource pair ('Report whether Dev Studio's Network Inspector is enabled') and enumerates what it covers: Roku clients, packet/event counts, MITM state, and prerequisites remediation. It also differentiates itself by explicitly instructing 'Call this first' before other network_inspector_* tools.

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?

Gives an explicit usage directive: 'Call this first before the other network_inspector_* tools'. It also tells the agent exactly how to behave when ready is false (relay notice/remediation) and clarifies that reads are not useful until ready is true.

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