get_network_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the return type and default host behavior, giving some transparency. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, whether it requires an active SSH connection, or any error conditions. It adds a bit of context about host_name but omits broader behavioral traits.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args and Returns sections are clearly structured and contain no filler. Every sentence adds value, making it an efficient and well-organized description.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter), the description covers the purpose and the parameter adequately. An output schema exists, so detailed return structures are not required. It lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral notes, but for this simple 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?

The only parameter, host_name, is fully explained in the description: 'Named host from SSH_HOSTS config; uses default host if omitted.' This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only declares the field type and default null. The description fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('network interface status, connections, and statistics'), and lists return items (interfaces, connections, routing table). It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like check_network_connectivity or get_open_ports, but the resource scope is distinct enough.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or suggest sibling tools for different scenarios. The only contextual hint is the optional host_name parameter, but no usage scenarios are described.

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