network_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of indicating behavior. 'Get' implies a read-only, idempotent operation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, behavior for missing or invalid IDs, error responses, or response format, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter get tool, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what 'details' are returned, what happens when the network does not exist, or whether special permissions are needed. For an agent to invoke it correctly, more context is needed.

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% because the only parameter, networkId, is described as 'The network ID to retrieve.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get details of a specific network.' The word 'specific' helps distinguish it from list or count operations. However, it does not explicitly reference the networkId parameter or contrast with siblings like network_list, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of network_list, network_get, network_stats, or other network-related tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative references are provided, leaving the selection decision entirely to the agent.

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