Linux Network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it requires permissions, or any side effects. 'Network interfaces, ports, connections' gives no behavioral information at all.

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 brief but not concise in a useful way—it is under-specified. The short phrase does not earn its place because it omits the action, behavior, and usage context needed for correct invocation.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is broad ('interfaces, ports, connections') and lacks any usage context, parameter hints, or relationship to siblings. With no annotations and no usage guidance, the definition is far from complete for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 has a single generic 'params' object (additionalProperties: true) with no internal documentation and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what parameters, keys, or options are supported, leaving the agent completely uninformed.

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 'Network interfaces, ports, connections' is a noun phrase listing topics, not an action. It doesn't say what the tool does with these resources (list, get, monitor, modify). It vaguely covers the domain but does not distinguish itself from siblings like tcp_connect or linux_firewall.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many network-related siblings (tcp_connect, http_check, linux_firewall, nginx_status, etc.). No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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