network_summary_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return values: 'edge count, junction count, total road length, bounding box, and road name list.' It implies read-only behavior (summary) and does not hide side effects. It could mention file validity requirements, but overall transparent.

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 concise: three short paragraphs. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives usage guidance, and the third lists arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or vague wording.

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 is simple (1 parameter, no output schema), and the description covers its purpose, usage, input, and output. It could mention that the net_file must exist and be valid, but that is implicit. For a lightweight summary tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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 compensate. It adds meaning by stating 'Path to the SUMO network file (.net.xml)' for the single parameter net_file, clarifying it is a file path and specifying the expected format. This goes beyond the schema's bare type 'string'.

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's function: 'Get a comprehensive summary of a SUMO network.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'comprehensive summary of a SUMO network.' The usage guidance explicitly says 'Use when user asks about the network, its size, or what roads are included,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like visualize_net_tool or get_road_names_tool.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when user asks about the network, its size, or what roads are included.' While it does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, the context of sibling tools makes it clear that this tool is for summaries, not for conversion or visualization.

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