check_reachability

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: fast handshake, TCP probe duration, no facts gathering, and per-host status table output. It adds value beyond the schema, though could mention error behavior.

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 front-loaded with the main action and uses a structured Args list. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be more concise, but no wasted words.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no enums, and existing output schema, the description covers all needed context: parameter semantics, behavioral notes, and output format (per-host status as table). No gaps identified.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains all four parameters with constraints (hostnames must exist in config.ini), tag filter logic, default for max_workers, and config_path fallback. This compensates fully.

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 states 'Probe NETCONF reachability for one or more devices' with a specific verb and resource. It also mentions equivalence to 'junos-ops check --connect', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_device_facts or run_show_command.

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 implies quick probing via 'fast NETCONF handshake (no full PyEZ facts gathering, 5-second TCP probe)', indicating it's for lightweight checks. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is clear.

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