List Extra Networks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions GET and filters, implying a read operation, but does not disclose response format, pagination, performance, or side effects. Minimal behavioral detail beyond the basic listing.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the endpoint. No fluff or repetition; every word earns its place.

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?

Given 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, pagination, or detail what each filter does. The tool's behavior is only partially specified, leaving significant gaps for a list operation with multiple filters.

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 only 17% (only 'page' is described). The description says 'with optional filters' but does not elaborate on hash, name, title, filename, or fullname. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage and adds little meaning beyond the existing 'page' description.

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 lists extra networks of a page type (lora, checkpoint, etc.) and includes the endpoint. It distinguishes from specific sibling list tools like sdnext_list_loras by being generic across page types, with a specific verb and resource.

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?

It provides context on when to use (listing extra networks by page type) and mentions optional filters, but does not explicitly exclude dedicated list tools for specific types (e.g., sdnext_list_loras) or state when not to use this tool. Lacks explicit alternatives.

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