network_list

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses performance costs ('one extra daemon call per network'), filter behavior (valid keys and shorthand semantics), and the managed_only label filtering. It also specifies return format (summary vs full attrs), adding substantial operational context.

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 purpose and then methodically covers filters and parameters. Each sentence delivers meaningful detail without redundancy, and the args/returns structure improves scannability.

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?

The description covers return format, all parameter semantics, performance trade-offs, and filter syntax, which is comprehensive for a read-only list tool with no output schema. It leaves no obvious gaps for correct invocation.

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 fully documents all five parameters. It explains exact name/id filtering, valid filter keys (driver, label, type), the combination of names/ids with filters, and the managed_only label behavior, completely compensating for the schema gap.

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 'List networks,' a clear verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from other network tools. It further clarifies that greedy mode adds the connected-containers detail that network_inspect returns, making its role distinct.

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 clear guidance on when to use greedy versus default mode ('leave it False for a fast summary list') and contrasts with network_inspect. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like network_create or network_remove, but the context is sufficient for the primary list-vs-inspect decision.

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