get_network_status

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

The description explicitly states it is a read operation ('Get') and details the return content. With no annotations, this provides adequate transparency about its non-destructive nature and basic behavior.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and return value. No superfluous information 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 an output schema exists, the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs to know: it returns a summary of places, transitions, arcs, and validation status. This is complete for a simple status tool.

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?

No parameters exist, so the description has no burden to add parameter meaning. According to the baseline rule for zero parameters, a score of 4 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?

Description clearly states it retrieves the current status of the Petri Net and lists the key components included (places, transitions, arcs, validation status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific aspects like validation or simulation.

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 validate_net or get_network_bounds. However, the description implies it is for a general overview, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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