list_networks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all networks' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify critical details like whether it returns all networks at once (vs. paginated), the format of the output (e.g., JSON array), error conditions (e.g., if no networks exist), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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 'List all networks' is extremely concise—three words that directly convey the core action. It's front-loaded with the verb and resource, leaving no wasted space. For a simple list operation with no parameters, this brevity is efficient and effective.

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?

Given the complexity (a read operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., network IDs, names, statuses) or behavioral aspects like pagination or error handling. For a tool in a server management context with many siblings, more context would help the agent use it correctly.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none to explain. It accurately reflects the tool's lack of inputs, so it meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools without introducing confusion.

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 'List all networks' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('networks'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'networks' refers to in this context (e.g., virtual networks, network configurations) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_servers' or 'list_load_balancers' beyond the resource name. This makes it vague but not tautological or misleading.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication state), context (e.g., after creating a network), or comparisons to siblings like 'get_primary_ip' or 'list_firewalls'. Without any usage hints, the agent must infer context solely from the tool name and sibling list.

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