liara_get_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid networkId), or what 'details' entail (e.g., JSON structure, included fields). This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage, as critical behavioral traits are missing.

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, clear sentence with zero waste—'Get details of a network' directly conveys the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loaded with the essential information, making it highly efficient.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include in the response, which is crucial since there's no output schema. For a retrieval tool, this omission leaves the agent uncertain about the return value, reducing overall 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 100% description coverage (networkId is described as 'The network ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as format examples (e.g., UUID) or where to find the networkId. It meets the minimum but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 'Get' and resource 'details of a network', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like liara_list_networks (which lists multiple networks) and liara_create_network/liara_delete_network (which mutate networks). However, it doesn't specify what 'details' include (e.g., configuration, status, resources), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 is provided. The agent must infer from the name and sibling tools that this retrieves details for a specific network ID, while liara_list_networks lists all networks. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or when not to use it, leaving gaps in practical usage.

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