Supernet Aggregate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core behavior—returning the smallest covering supernet—and implies the input requirement of contiguity. However, it does not explain behavior on non-contiguous, invalid, or mixed-version prefixes, nor any failure modes beyond the tentative word 'Try.'

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action, output, input condition, and use case in just two sentences. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a single-parameter pure computation tool with an output schema available, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, what input it expects, and what it returns. The main gap is explicit handling of edge cases, but the low complexity and output schema reduce the need for additional detail.

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 100%, and the parameter description already includes the comma-separated format and an example. The tool description adds the 'contiguous subnets' precondition but does not substantially enhance understanding of the prefixes parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action (aggregate IP prefixes) and the resource (a list of prefixes), with a specific outcome: 'returns the smallest covering supernet.' It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like subnet_split, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides useful context: it is for 'summarizing route announcements' and expects 'contiguous subnets.' However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as prefix_overlap or subnet_split, nor does it give when-not-to-use guidance.

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