slide_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 behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses a non-obvious and important behavior: secret fields are redacted even though the underlying Slide API returns them. It does not mention authentication or explicitly state that this is read-only, but the 'List' verb and redaction caveat provide adequate safety context for a listing operation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the security-relevant redaction caveat is expressed in a single clear clause without redundant detail.

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 read-only listing tool with seven optional parameters fully documented in the schema, the description supplies essential purpose, filtering, and redaction context. It does not describe the exact response shape or pagination behavior, but those gaps are minor given the schema coverage and the straightforward nature of a list operation.

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 schema already describes all seven parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that filtering by client and creation date is possible, which maps to client_id and created_after/created_before, but it provides no extra syntax, defaults, or 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 combines a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('disaster-recovery networks') and adds filter dimensions. It is clear what the tool operates on, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like slide_get_network beyond the singular/plural naming convention.

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 conveys the natural use case: enumerate disaster-recovery networks and filter by client or creation date. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over slide_get_network or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from naming conventions.

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