network_list

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 covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: greedy costs one extra daemon call per network, managed_only filters on a specific label, and the return shape changes from summary attrs to full inspect attrs with 'Containers' when greedy=True. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate performance and output differences.

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 dense but well-organized: a one-line summary, a paragraph on filters and greedy, a compact Args list, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds information, and the most important usage guidance (filters and greedy) is front-loaded. No filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: filter semantics, performance trade-offs, the managed_only special case, and the return shape. The sibling list is large, but the description's explicit mention of network_inspect and the greedy behavior removes ambiguity. Nothing critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics, and it delivers. It explains the valid filter keys (driver, label, type), the shorthand behavior of names/ids, the greedy trade-off, and the managed_only label filter. It also documents the return format per parameter combination. This fully compensates for the empty 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 'List networks' – a specific verb and resource – and then immediately distinguishes the tool's scope by explaining the filter keys and the greedy flag. It clearly differentiates from siblings like network_inspect by stating that greedy adds the connected-containers detail that network_inspect returns. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it relates to nearby tools.

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 explicitly explains when to use greedy (fetch extended per-network details) versus leaving it False for a fast summary list, and it names network_inspect as the source of the extra detail. It also documents the valid filter keys and how names/ids interact with filters, giving clear context for choosing this tool and its options. No exclusions are needed because the tool is a straightforward list operation.

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