get_network_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose what the 'overview' contains (summary vs full data), whether it traverses recursively, the scale/cost of the traversal, or any permission requirements. An output schema exists, which partially covers the return shape, but the behavioral profile is largely undisclosed.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the key content front-loaded. No padding, though there is room to add routing and parameter context without bloat.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be re-explained, so the gap is narrower than it appears. However, the lone parameter is undocumented and there is no routing guidance against several similarly named sibling tools.

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?

There is one parameter (path, default '/obj') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. It says only 'a network' without explaining that path selects which network, nor the format or default behavior.

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 clear verb (get) and resource (network overview), and specifies the content: all nodes plus their connections. This distinguishes it naturally from list_children (immediate children only) and find_nodes (search), though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of how it differs from siblings like list_children, list_nodes, find_nodes, or get_node_info. The agent must infer the intended context.

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