check_reachability

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses it's a fast NETCONF handshake (5-second TCP probe), doesn't gather full facts, reports per-host status as table, and uses parallel threads. This is good transparency for a non-annotated tool.

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?

Description is fairly long but well-structured with bullet points and a code-equivalent line. All sentences add value. Slight redundancy in explaining tags filter, but overall efficient.

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 sibling tools are network device management functions, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and output (table). Output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. Complete enough for selection and invocation.

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%, so description must add meaning. It explains all four parameters: hostnames (must exist in config.ini), tags (complex filter logic with AND/OR and intersection with hostnames), max_workers (default 20), config_path (empty string uses default). This exceeds schema.

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 clearly states it probes NETCONF reachability for devices, specifies it's a fast handshake without full PyEZ facts gathering, and distinguishes from siblings like get_device_facts or health_check by mentioning speed and specific protocol.

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 it's for quick reachability checks (fast NETCONF handshake) but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. No exclusion criteria given.

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