list_networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description still adds value by disclosing that results are unfiltered across all accounts and providers and by naming the returned fields (provider, account, CIDR), though it omits pagination or result-size behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and scope first, then when to use it, then return shape. No filler and everything 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only lister with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and returned object shape, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Pagination or result-size limits are the only unaddressed detail.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to document. The description implicitly confirms the no-filter design by saying it lists across all accounts and providers.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all networks (VPCs)') plus explicit scope ('across all Spinnaker accounts and cloud providers'), which separates it from sibling list tools like list_subnets and list_firewalls. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('use this to discover available networks when configuring deployment targets or security groups'), which is a genuine when-to-use signal. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or stating exclusions, so it is clear context but not full routing guidance.

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