network_list

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false), the description adds important behavioral details: it warns that greedy incurs one extra daemon call per network, describes return format changes with greedy, and explains server-side filtering. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence, followed by filter key details and then args/returns. It's sufficiently detailed without being verbose, though some sentences could be more concise.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description is fully complete. It covers all parameters, return format, and provides warnings about performance. Everything needed to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema), so the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter: names/ids for exact filtering, filters with valid keys (driver, label, type), greedy boolean, and managed_only. This adds meaning absent from the schema.

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.' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like network_inspect by explaining summary vs full details, and mentions valid filter keys, making it easy to select this tool over alternatives.

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 explains when to use greedy (for detailed per-network attrs) and when to leave it False for fast summary. It also clarifies managed_only for server-created networks. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use network_inspect instead, but the context is implied.

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