network_list

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: true and destructiveHint: false, which already cover safety. The description adds that it returns 'a list of network attrs dicts', but no further behavioral traits like pagination or rate limits are disclosed.

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 extremely concise with a clear structure: a one-line summary followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the format is front-loaded.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, the description explains parameters but lacks contextual guidance on interactions (e.g., greedy vs filters, managed_only precedence) and the exact output format. Sibling tools like network_inspect are not referenced.

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%, so the description's parameter comments add essential meaning—e.g., 'Filter by network names' for the names parameter. The details are minimal but sufficient to understand each parameter's purpose.

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 network_create and network_inspect. However, it does not elaborate on the scope (e.g., all networks or filtered) beyond the parameter hints.

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 versus alternatives like network_inspect or other list tools. The description does not mention when filtering or greedy mode is appropriate, nor does it exclude any usage scenarios.

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