List Avalanche networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat these. The description adds context about what the output contains (chain IDs, RPC URLs, etc.), but this is more about the result content than behavioral characteristics. It does not add information about rate limits, authentication, or side effects beyond the read-only nature already annotated. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate because the description provides some value but not rich behavioral 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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core action and specific content, while the second sentence provides clear usage direction. Every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized for a simple, parameter-free enumeration tool.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a simple enumerative purpose, the description is fairly complete. It tells the agent what networks are included, what fields are returned, and when to use it. It does not describe the exact output format (e.g., JSON structure), but with no output schema provided, some inference is acceptable. The phrase 'well-known L1s' could be slightly ambiguous, but the overall intent is clear. The description covers the essential information an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema automatically covers them fully (100% coverage). Since there are no parameters to describe, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4 per the calibration guidance, and the description does not attempt to invent parameter information. It uses the 'network' value in the usage guidance, but that refers to the output values, not input parameters.

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: to list all networks known to the server, specifying the exact networks (Mainnet C-Chain, Fuji testnet, well-known L1s) and the information provided (chain IDs, RPC URLs, explorers, faucets). This is a specific verb (list) plus a specific resource (networks), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like avax_get_block or avax_get_balance which are data retrieval operations on specific networks rather than enumeration of available networks.

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 provides an explicit usage condition: 'Call this first when unsure which `network` value to use.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though the implied guidance is clear—if you already know the network, you don't need this. It could have mentioned that other network-dependent tools rely on the values returned here, but the core guidance is strong.

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