get_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' clearly signals a non-mutating read operation, and the description adds the scoping detail that only one network is returned based on network_id. It does not discuss errors or authorization, but that is acceptable for a simple read operation with an output schema.

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 with the core action. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the operation, and the second provides essential parameter semantics. No filler or repetition.

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-fetch tool, the description covers invocation prerequisites, parameter formats, and how to obtain the key identifier. The presence of an output schema covers the response shape, leaving no significant gap for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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%, yet the description explains all three parameters: host accepts console name, ID, or composite ID, with explicit format; site accepts name or ID; network_id is marked REQUIRED and its provenance is explained. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get a single network/VLAN by ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from list_networks (bulk retrieval) and get_network_application_info (application-specific network info), so an agent can select it correctly.

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?

Provides concrete guidance on how to construct the call, including accepted formats for host and site and explicitly directing the agent to obtain network_id from list_networks. It does not enumerate alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the singular/by-ID framing and the pointer to list_networks supply adequate context.

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