debug_network

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 states the operation is diagnostic-only, which implies no data mutation, and promises full error detail for troubleshooting. It does not explicitly state that the tool makes no changes to system state or that network requests could be slow, but 'DIAGNOSTIC ONLY' covers the most important trait.

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?

One efficient sentence with the 'DIAGNOSTIC ONLY' warning front-loaded, followed by the action and its purpose. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant information.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers what it tests, where it tests to, and the nature of the result (full error detail). It provides sufficient context for an agent to decide to invoke it during connectivity troubleshooting, though it could add a note about potential network timeout behavior.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description complements the empty schema by stating exactly what connectivity will be tested, but there is no parameter information to add.

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 ('tests') with a clear resource ('outbound HTTPS connectivity'), and specifies two targets: a generic endpoint and the configured Supabase URL. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools, which are all business-data operations (inventories, prices, orders), not diagnostics.

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 leading 'DIAGNOSTIC ONLY' label clearly signals that this tool is for troubleshooting, not routine use, providing an implicit exclusion. It names its purpose—testing connectivity to the Supabase URL—but does not explicitly name alternative diagnostic tools or state when not to use it. Still, the diagnostic context is unmistakable.

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