List GenLayer Networks

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal context: it mentions the source ('documented network matrix') and the output type (presets and RPC endpoints). However, it does not disclose any potential rate limits, output size, or key behavioral traits beyond what is already clear from 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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys all necessary information without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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 absence of parameters and output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It identifies the data source and content. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., array of objects) or provide example results, which would improve completeness for an agent unfamiliar with the 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?

With zero parameters (schema coverage 100% by virtue of emptiness), the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level details but clarifies the tool's output scope, which is acceptable for a parameterless tool.

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 explicitly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'GenLayer network presets and RPC endpoints', with the specific source 'from the documented network matrix'. It clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like genlayer_network_status or genlayer_probe_endpoint_capabilities, which focus on connectivity status or endpoint probing, not listing presets.

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 guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. For instance, it does not explain when to choose genlayer_list_networks vs genlayer_probe_endpoint_capabilities or genlayer_node_health. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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