network_create

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses key behavioral traits: creating a network attaches nothing, networks are stamped with provenance labels, check_duplicate is deprecated because recent daemons always check, and the default driver is bridge. These are meaningful behavioral insights that help avoid surprises.

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: a one-sentence purpose, two sentences of high-value context, and a compact args list. No sentence is wasted; the deprecation note and provenance label info earn their place. Front-loaded with the most important facts.

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 11 parameters and nested objects, the description covers all crucial aspects: purpose, driver selection, attachment behavior, parameter semantics, return value shape, and how to find networks later. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description includes an args block explaining every parameter, including the ipam dictionary shape. It adds crucial semantics like the default for driver, the deprecation note for check_duplicate, and the meaning of attachable/ingress. This fully compensates for the absent schema 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 a clear, specific verb+resource ('Create a network') and immediately adds context about default drivers. It distinguishes itself from related tools like network_connect and network_list by explaining that creating a network attaches nothing and that provenance labels enable later discovery via network_list(managed_only=True). This is a model of purpose clarity.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use 'bridge' for single-host and 'overlay' for swarm-wide networks. It also specifies what the tool does NOT do (attach containers) and directs users to network_connect or container_run(network=...) for attachment. This is strong alternative/alternative-context guidance.

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