get_network_performance

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavior such as whether the operation is read-only, what the output format looks like, any rate limits, or any side effects. The phrase 'from the network monitor' adds minimal context, but the description is essentially a subject-verb-object statement with no behavioral depth.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and specific metrics. Every word contributes value, with no wasted text or repetition.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately lists the key metrics returned. It lacks details like time range or output format, but the tool's simplicity and the enumeration of metrics make it reasonably complete. Sibling context does not demand more.

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, so the schema is fully covered and there is nothing to explain. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter semantics needed.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('network performance metrics') and enumerates specific metrics (WAN latency, packet loss, DNS response times, connection quality). It distinguishes itself from some siblings (e.g., get_wan_usage) by listing these explicit metrics, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or differentiate from close siblings like get_network_status.

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 the many sibling tools. The description simply states what it does without mentioning context, alternatives, exclusions, or recommendations. This leaves the agent without clear direction on selection.

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