vsphere_list_networks

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

Annotations declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral insights beyond these: distributed port groups additionally report VLAN configuration and the distributed switch, and the name filter supports substring/glob matching. This enriches what the agent knows about the tool's behavior without contradicting 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 concise and well-structured: a single-purpose opening sentence, one sentence adding behavioral nuance, and an Args list that adds no fluff. It is front-loaded with 'List networks' and every line contributes value, making it easy to scan.

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 there are 5 parameters and the tool is a list operation with an output schema, the description covers the scope (three network types), all parameter semantics, pagination via limit/offset, and extra output behavior for distributed port groups. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema provides zero description coverage (0%), so the description must carry the full explanatory burden. It does so comprehensively: each parameter (name, datacenter, kind, limit, offset) is explained with its purpose and, for kind, the allowed values. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with 'List networks' and then specifies the exact resource types: standard port groups, distributed port groups, and opaque networks. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like vsphere_list_hosts or vsphere_list_vms.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions. It implies usage by describing the network types, but lacks the explicit 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance seen in higher-scoring examples.

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