network_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the return content: connected containers keyed by id with assigned IP, IPAM config, driver options, and equivalence to `docker network inspect`. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not 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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states the core action, second explains key return fields, third gives the sibling alternative, and then a clean args/returns section. No redundant language; every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It names the tool's scope, return fields, and how it differs from the related list tool. It doesn't mention error behavior, but that's not critical for a simple inspect operation.

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 0% description coverage and only contains a bare string parameter. The description compensates by naming the parameter in plain language: 'args: id_or_name - The network id or name', clarifying that it accepts either an id or a name. It lacks format examples or validation details, but for a single-parameter tool this is adequate.

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 clear, specific verb and resource: 'Return the full inspect detail for a single network.' It distinguishes itself from network_list, which is for quick overviews of many networks, and from other network operations. The title and first sentence unambiguously state the tool's purpose.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: '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 exactly when to choose an alternative, with a rationale, and when to choose this tool (need full inspect detail for one network).

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