ネットワーク状態取得

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the returned state structure (fields like role, isConnected, players, config). No contradictions; it supplements annotations well.

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 efficient sentences: first states purpose and lists output fields, second gives usage examples. No wasted words, front-loaded with the tool's function.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and detailed output description provided, the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool returns and its typical uses.

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 (0 params, baseline 4). Schema coverage is 100% as there are none. Description does not need to add parameter info; it instead describes output, which 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 the tool returns multiplayer current state, lists key fields, and provides use cases. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like dx12_net_setup and dx12_net_launch_test_client by being a read-only status getter.

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?

Description provides clear context for usage: connection check, RTT/bandwidth observation, verification of replicated entity count. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it misses the highest bar.

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