network_list

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

Beyond the read-only annotation, the description explains the extra daemon call cost for greedy, the interplay of names/ids with filters, the managed_only label filtering, and the difference in return attributes. This is substantial behavioral 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 well-structured with a summary, filter key explanation, args list, and returns section. It is detailed but every sentence provides useful guidance with no redundancy.

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 all five parameters, the return format for both default and greedy modes, valid filter keys, and the relationship to network_inspect. For a list tool with no output schema, this is complete and self-contained.

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 coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: names, ids, filters (with valid keys), greedy (with cost/benefit), and managed_only (label-based). This adds complete semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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. It further details filter keys and the greedy option, and distinguishes the tool from network_inspect by referencing what greedy adds.

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 clearly states the use case for listing networks, and the greedy parameter explicitly compares to network_inspect's output, indicating when you'd want the extended detail. It also advises leaving greedy False for a fast summary list, giving clear usage context.

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