scan_network

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), which fully answers whether it's safe and whether it touches the outside world. The description adds the registry-refresh side effect and the three-way outcome categorization, but doesn't mention scope (all devices? one network?) or any rate limits, and doesn't disclose whether the refresh is synchronous. Some value added 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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the action ('Refresh the registry') and then adds the outcome categories. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain the return structure, and it correctly does not. The description is complete enough for a zero-parameter scan given annotations cover safety and output schema covers results, though it doesn't clarify what 'registry' means or the scope of the scan.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The schema has no fields to misinterpret and the description correctly implies the tool takes no input.

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?

States a specific verb (Refresh) and resource (the registry), plus the side effect of reporting changes (new devices, returned, left). Clear enough to distinguish from read-only siblings like known_devices or list_devices, though it doesn't name an alternative.

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 explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, but a reasonable agent can infer that this is the tool to invoke when you want to discover changes since last scan, as opposed to simply listing known devices. Implied usage only.

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