vpc_get_network_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the return value (comprehensive network information with usage recommendations) but does not state that the operation is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, or if any side effects occur. Since it's a 'get' tool, read-only is implied, but not stated, and there's no mention of rate limits or error conditions.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and structured into short sections for smart resolution, args, and returns. Every sentence adds value. It is not overly verbose, though the 'Smart identifier resolution' line could be integrated into the Args description, but the structure is effective.

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 has two parameters, both explained, and an output schema exists, so the return summary is adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance against siblings, behavioral details like read-only confirmation, and any mention of prerequisites or error handling. For a read-only get tool, it is mostly complete, but the missing usage guidance and behavioral transparency prevent a higher score.

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 description explicitly explains both parameters: identifier as 'VPC/VPC 2.0 description or ID' and vpc_type with allowed values ('vpc', 'vpc2', 'auto'). Since the input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), the description fully compensates by adding meaning to both parameters. It is clear and actionable, though it could include examples or formatting hints, but the semantics are well covered.

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 tool retrieves comprehensive network information for VPC or VPC 2.0, specifying the resource and the action. It also mentions smart identifier resolution using description or ID, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like vpc_list_by_region or vpc_list_instance_networks, so it could be slightly clearer on how it differs from those.

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 provides guidance on how to use the identifier parameter (description or ID) and the vpc_type parameter (with 'auto' to search both), but it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions that would favor vpc_list_by_region for listing all VPCs or vpc_get for a specific one. The usage context is only implied by the tool name, not explicitly spelled out.

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