network

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does declare 'Read-only' and describes the shape of the result in unusual detail, including ordering and the reason a machine may be offline. It stops short of stating size limits, pagination, or how stale the snapshot may be, which are the remaining gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: what it returns, when to call it, and which sibling to use instead. The most decision-relevant information (what the call yields) is front-loaded, and no sentence is filler.

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 zero-parameter read-only snapshot tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the contents and ordering of the return value, the read-only guarantee, the trigger scenario, and the sibling routing. There is no meaningful remaining ambiguity for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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 input schema is an empty object with zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no arguments are needed by framing the call as a simple snapshot request.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Show this agentlink network') and then enumerates exactly what is returned: machines in joining order with who added each, online status or the reason it is offline, this machine, and pending messages. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling 'peers', which is for finding an agent to message, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 explicit trigger conditions ('when your user asks about their network or a message seems stuck') and names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ('To find an agent to message, use peers'). Both the when-to-use and the routing rule are stated outright rather than left to inference.

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