network_inspect

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish that this is a safe, read-only operation. The description adds valuable context about what the response contains (connected containers with IPs, IPAM config, driver options) and its equivalence to `docker network inspect`. It does not introduce any contradictions.

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 tightly written: a one-sentence purpose, a sentence on response contents, an alternative routing note, and a concise return type line. Every sentence earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 simple read-only tool with a single parameter and no output schema, this description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns, how to invoke it (via identifier), and when to prefer it over a sibling. No critical information is missing.

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 schema has zero description coverage; the parameter name 'id_or_name' is self-explanatory but the description does not explicitly elaborate on it. However, the phrase 'single network' implies the parameter identifies the network. This is adequate but does not add extra meaning like format examples or acceptance criteria.

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 begins with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('full inspect detail for a single network'), and explicitly contrasts with network_list ('For a quick overview of many networks use network_list instead'). This clearly distinguishes it from its most similar sibling, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 on when to use this tool versus the alternative: use this for a single network's full detail, and use network_list for a quick overview of many networks. This is a direct, actionable routing instruction.

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