get_networks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral details. It states the tool returns all networks but does not mention authentication, rate limits, read-only status, or other side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 that directly conveys the action and scope. It uses no unnecessary words or redundant structure, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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, list-all tool, the description adequately conveys the primary output. However, since there is no output schema, it could provide more detail about the returned format (e.g., network names, IDs) or any pagination. The description is almost complete but leaves minor room for clarification.

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 accepts zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description's mention of 'all' networks clarifies the scope and the lack of filtering, which is sufficient. Baseline 4 for zero parameters is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a list of all blockchain networks supported by Codex.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all blockchain networks'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_network_status and get_network_stats, which focus on individual network data.

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 the tool is used when a full list of supported networks is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. While sibling tools exist for network-specific metrics, there is no direct guidance on preferring this tool over others.

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