calculate_cluster_network_capacity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return value (capacity calculations) and parameter meanings, but does not discuss potential errors, assumptions about CIDR validity, or any internal behavior. For a pure calculation tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 compact docstring with clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every line is informative with no filler, making it easy to parse and act upon.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description covers purpose, parameters, and return summary. It lacks usage context relative to siblings, but for a straightforward calculation tool, the information provided is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by clearly explaining both parameters with concrete examples: '10.128.0.0/14' for cluster_cidr and '23' for host_prefix, plus clarifying host_prefix as 'subnet size per node'. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 a specific verb 'calculate' and a clear resource 'cluster network capacity', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'validate_network_cidr' and 'check_network_overlap'. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and general context.

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