registry / list_networks

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

The annotations already communicate that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds only the scope of returned registry information and says nothing about ordering, local provenance meaning, or limitations, so it adds modest value beyond structured metadata.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. It states the resource and scope immediately.

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 zero-parameter read-only list operation, the description is minimally adequate, but with no output schema it could better clarify what a "network identity" contains and what "available local source provenance" means. The annotations cover safety, but return-shape context remains thin.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics are inherently simple and the baseline is 4. The schema is empty and fully covered, leaving nothing further to explain.

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 has a clear verb ("List") and a specific resource ("Rootstock network identities and available local source provenance"), so an agent can distinguish it from contract- or ABI-oriented registry siblings. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast use cases, which keeps it from a 5.

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 usage is implied by the name and description: this is the registry tool for listing network identities. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives such as registry.list_contracts or topology.explore.

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