network_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it details what the inspect result includes (connected containers with IPs, IPAM config, driver options) and states the return is equivalent to `docker network inspect`. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining output contents and performance tradeoffs, though it doesn't cover error cases or permissions.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by useful detail and a structured args/returns section. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition. The layout is logically organized and scannable, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 read-only, single-parameter inspection tool, the description is complete. It states what the tool does, what data is included in the response, the return type, and when to use an alternative. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit mention of return structure and contents, making this sufficient 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides the essential param explanation: 'id_or_name - The network id or name.' This fully compensates for the bare schema field, clearly indicating the parameter accepts either an ID or a name. It adds the exact semantic meaning needed beyond the schema.

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 'Return the full inspect detail for a single network,' which is a clear, specific verb+resource statement. It differentiates from siblings like network_list by explicitly contrasting the 'quick overview of many networks' use case, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'For a quick overview of many networks use `network_list` instead — its default (non-`greedy`) response omits the per-network `Containers` detail for speed.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus an alternative, which is exactly the kind of usage direction needed.

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