network_list

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

Beyond the readOnly and destructive annotations, the description explains the performance cost of greedy (extra daemon call per network), the behavior of names/ids as a separate shorthand, and the managed_only filter. It also mentions the return format. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear purpose then detailing parameters. It is concise at about 150 words, but could be slightly more concise by grouping related notes. However, it efficiently conveys necessary information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description specifies the return type ('list of network attrs dicts') and covers all parameter behaviors, including interaction between names/ids and filters. For a listing tool with 5 parameters, it is comprehensive.

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 explains all parameters: names/ids (filtering shorthand), filters (valid keys: driver, label, type), greedy (extended details), and managed_only (server-side label filter). It adds context beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 clearly states 'List networks' and specifies valid filter keys. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like network_inspect and network_prune by being the list operation for networks. The purpose is 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?

The description provides implicit guidance by noting that setting greedy=True adds the connected-containers detail that network_inspect returns, suggesting when to use greedy. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or alternatives like network_inspect for a single network.

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