list_networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that the tool flags external networks and limits to project-scoped networks. This extra detail helps the agent understand what the output will contain without contradicting the annotations.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes a key differentiator ('flagging which are external') with zero wasted words. It is concise and structured effectively.

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 tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description covers the core action. However, it omits any mention of the 'limit' parameter behavior or what 'external' means exactly, which could leave the agent uncertain about pagination or result interpretation. Given the existence of an output schema, return values are defined, but the missing parameter semantics slightly reduce completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% because the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. With only one optional parameter, the description should compensate by explaining its usage (e.g., 'limits the number of networks returned'), but it provides no parameter information. The parameter name 'limit' is self-explanatory, but the description fails to add any semantic value beyond the raw 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 explicitly states the verb ('List'), the resource ('networks'), and the scope ('available to this project'), and adds a unique detail ('flagging which are external') that distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_servers or list_images. This clearly defines the tool's purpose.

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 clear context by specifying 'available to this project', which implies the tool is scoped to the current project and should be used when needing network information. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous. No alternative tools are named, but the purpose is distinct enough.

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