network_list

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

The description declares it is a READ operation but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or whether all networks or only accessible ones are returned. Without annotations, the description should provide more 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?

The description is very concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose and parameter details in only two lines. Every sentence is necessary and no information is redundant.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameter usage. It implies the return structure (list of objects with specified fields), though an explicit statement about the output format would improve completeness.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining org_id as a Meraki organization ID and target as a config target, including their default behavior. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema types.

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 it reads networks and lists the fields returned (id, name, productTypes, tags). The purpose is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like network_get, which retrieves a single network.

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 explains how to use the optional parameters (org_id and target) with defaults. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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