simpleinout_list_networks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action 'List' and the HTTP method, which implies read-only, but does not disclose pagination behavior, permissions, rate limits, or any other side effects. The description is minimal and does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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, with a clear purpose statement, the API endpoint, and a simple args list. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, earning a high score for efficiency.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, the endpoint, and the parameters. It does not include additional context like filters or business rules, but the tool's simplicity makes it reasonably complete.

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 description provides brief meanings for the two parameters ('page: Page number', 'page_size: Results per page'), which adds a little value over the schema titles 'Page' and 'Page Size'. However, schema coverage is 0% and the explanations are minimal, not compensating enough for the lack of detailed 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List all Wi-Fi networks used for automatic presence detection.' It also provides the API endpoint (GET /networks) and distinguishes itself from sibling list tools that target roles, statuses, users, etc.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to list Wi-Fi networks for presence detection. The sibling tool names are distinct, so the intended use is evident. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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