List Cloud Server networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond the endpoint string – no pagination behavior, no scoping to the region, no note that results are region-bound. With annotations carrying the load, a 2 is warranted because the description contributes essentially zero extra context.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the read marker and endpoint. It is efficient and wastes no words, though the raw OpenAPI path is a slightly opaque way to communicate purpose.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema absent and annotations covering safety, this is minimally viable. It would be better if it stated what a network object is or how results are scoped, but the endpoint plus schema are enough to call it correctly.

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 single region parameter is fully documented in the schema (with an example value). The description only echoes {region} in the path template and adds no format or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 bracketed [READ] tag and the HTTP verb/path (GET /regions/{region}/networks) tell a knowledgeable agent that this retrieves networks within a region. However, the description never plainly states 'lists Cloud Server networks' – it leans entirely on the title and raw endpoint notation, and does not distinguish it from siblings like list_servers_v3 or the generic invoke_iaas_v1_api.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to call this versus invoke_iaas_v1_api (which can hit the same endpoint) or other list_* tools. The only implicit signal is the [READ] prefix.

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