list_networks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It declares a read operation ('list'), which is appropriate. However, it lacks details such as whether the result includes network metadata, how pagination works, or if permissions are needed. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise—one sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to read. However, it may be too brief, missing opportunities to add context without becoming verbose.

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 listing tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks details on return values, parameter dependencies, or behavior when env_id is not set. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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 input schema has two parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description only mentions 'the given environment,' implying env_id's role, but completely ignores the agent_token parameter, leaving its purpose unclear. The description adds minimal value 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 clearly states that the tool lists all networks, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'inspect_network' (single network) and 'get_network_counts' (count only). It uses a specific verb and resource.

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 indicates the tool is used to list networks 'in the given environment,' providing basic context. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'inspect_network' for details or 'prune_networks' for cleanup. No explicit when-not-to guidance is given.

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