Get internet status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope by saying only connections that are up are returned and by listing fields like external IP and default-route flag, but it does not describe the full return structure or edge-case 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?

Two short sentences with no wasted text. The resource and returned fields are front-loaded, and the sibling routing note follows immediately.

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?

With zero parameters, no output schema, and rich safety annotations, the description provides enough context: it identifies the resource, lists the key returned fields, and points to get_system_info for related router-level information.

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 there are no input semantics to explain. The description appropriately spends its space on output field meaning instead, which is useful even though it is not required for invocation.

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 a specific resource and scope: internet connections that are up, with the returned fields listed. It also distinguishes this tool from get_system_info by assigning router firmware/load/uptime to that sibling, so an agent can identify the tool without opening schemas.

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?

It gives a clear boundary by saying router firmware, load and uptime belong in get_system_info, which helps route the agent. It does not explicitly compare against other network-status siblings such as get_interfaces or get_vpn_status, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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