network_create

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a write but not destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this; it doesn't detail authentication requirements, side effects, or handling of duplicate names (though the 'check_duplicate' parameter is listed without behavioral implication). More transparency would improve agent decision-making.

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 structured as a clear one-liner followed by a parameter list. It's front-loaded with the purpose. The list is readable, though slightly verbose for 11 items. Every line is informative, but there is minor redundancy with schema.

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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers all parameters and mentions the return type ('returns: dict - The created network's attrs'). It lacks contextual notes on failure modes or practical usage, but is largely complete for a straightforward creation tool.

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 description adds meaningful parameter explanations beyond the input schema, which only provides types and defaults (e.g., 'driver - Driver name (e.g. bridge, overlay)'). All 11 parameters are described with brief clarifications, adding value despite no schema descriptions. However, some explanations are minimal, preventing a top score.

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 action 'Create a network.' The tool name 'network_create' matches the description. It distinguishes from sibling tools like network_connect and network_inspect by focusing solely on 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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the siblings are different actions (connect, inspect, list, etc.), the description does not mention scenarios or prerequisites. It assumes the agent knows to use create for new networks, which is reasonable but not explicitly guided.

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