get_supported_networks

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

The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and confirms a read-only operation. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide, such as return format or any edge cases, though the tool's simplicity reduces the need for more.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or redundant phrasing.

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 no-parameter, read-only list tool, the description fully conveys the scope ('all supported TRON networks') and the action. With annotations describing safety and idempotency, and no output schema required for such a simple return, the description is 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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist, and that is appropriate; the schema already fully covers this aspect.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of all supported TRON networks'), precisely stating the tool's function. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_chain_info and get_node_info, which target different resources.

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 implies usage whenever a list of supported networks is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. There are no sibling tools that provide the same functionality, so the guidance is adequate but not explicit about exclusions or alternatives.

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