list_networks

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that greedy fetches extended details and managed_only filters on a specific label. However, it does not disclose rate limits, auth needs, or other constraints.

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 concise, front-loaded with 'List networks', and uses a clear args list format. No unnecessary words, but could benefit from more structured bullet points.

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?

Covers basic purpose and parameters, but omits default behavior (e.g., lists all networks if no filters), pagination, error handling, or return value details beyond 'list of network attrs dicts'. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains each parameter briefly: names, ids, filters (vague), greedy, managed_only. The 'filters' parameter lacks detail on acceptable keys/values, leaving ambiguity.

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 'List networks' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_network (single network) and create_network (creation).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies usage by listing args, but lacks context like 'Use this to get an overview of all networks'. The managed_only filter gives some scenario-specific guidance.

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