Report network state

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates non-destructiveness. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: reachability is a routing check, not a ping, returns instantly, and does not prove the host is up. This helps set expectations and prevents misuse.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every clause carries meaning. The key caveat about reachability is placed in the second sentence without redundancy.

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?

Given the low complexity (one optional parameter, read-only annotation, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers the default behavior, the optional behavior, and the important limitation of reachability checks.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by clarifying the host parameter is optional and by explaining what reachability actually means (routing check, not a ping). This goes beyond the schema's simple 'Hostname to check reachability for.'

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and enumerates exact resources: primary network interface, IP addresses, router, current wifi network, and optional host reachability. This clearly differentiates it from more targeted sibling tools like hs_wifi.

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 context of use is implied rather than explicitly stated: it reports network state and optionally checks host reachability. It provides a useful caveat that reachability is not a ping and answers instantly, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as hs_wifi or a ping-like tool.

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