get_network_references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states this is a read operation ('Get', 'Returns') and enumerates the returned resource types. It does not mention permissions or edge cases, but for a read-only dependency check, this is sufficient transparency.

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: purpose first, then return types, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value with zero fluff or repetition. The parameter explanations are concise and actionable.

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 tool has only three required parameters, and the description explains all three with formats and sources. An output schema exists to document the return structure, and the description supplements it by naming the concrete resource types. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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 the description must fully compensate. It explains each parameter: host accepts console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId); site is name or ID; network_id is the UUID from list_networks. This provides complete semantic guidance beyond the bare string types in the 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 the tool 'Get all resources referencing a network' and specifies the exact resource types returned (WiFi broadcasts, firewall policies, port profiles). This verb-resource pairing is distinctive and separates it from sibling tools like get_network or delete_network.

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 phrase 'useful before deleting to check dependencies' provides a clear situational context. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the use case is specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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