network_scan_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Scan' implies a non-destructive read operation, and the listed fields give some detail. However, it does not disclose permissions, scope (local vs remote), or any side effects, which is a moderate gap for a tool that could potentially access network configurations.

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 concise sentence, no redundant information. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easily scannable for an AI agent.

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?

The description covers the basic purpose and the type of data returned (IP, MAC, status, speed), but it lacks details about output format, local vs remote scope, and any prerequisites. Given no output schema exists, the description should provide more context on what the agent can expect after 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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially covered (100%). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0-param tools is 4.

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 the verb 'Scan' and the resource 'Windows network adapters', and further specifies the configuration details (IP, MAC, status, speed). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like port_scan_tool and subnet_check_tool, which focus on other network aspects.

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 usage when network adapter information is needed on Windows, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no comparison with sibling tools, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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