list_networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds that output is grouped by driver. It says nothing about pagination, volume of results, or error behavior on an unknown target, so added value over annotations is modest.

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 single-line purpose is front-loaded and the Args block is compact with no filler. Slightly more verbose than strictly needed for a one-parameter tool, but nothing is wasted.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, read semantics, output grouping, and the only parameter's behavior. The absence of any statement about result size or empty result handling is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: 'target: Target name from config; omit for the default' explains origin, meaning, and the omission/default case. It stops short of naming valid target values, but it meaningfully compensates for the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Docker networks') and adds a distinguishing behavioral note ('bucketed by driver'), which separates it from inspect_network. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling inspect_network, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 '[READ]' prefix implies this is a non-mutating enumeration tool, and 'omit for the default' implies the default-target case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to inspect_network or other list_* tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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