network_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a new WSL network,' which restates the tool's name and gives no information about side effects, default driver behavior, or interaction with containers.

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, a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so sparse that it barely adds value beyond the tool name, making it efficient in size but limited in substance.

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 create operation with multiple parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of 'opt' or 'label', when to use custom drivers, or what the command returns. Given the schema richness and sibling tools, more contextual detail is needed.

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 includes descriptions for all 4 parameters (name, driver, label, opt), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 action (create) and resource (WSL network), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like network_remove and network_list by the verb. However, it lacks additional scope detail such as default driver or use cases.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as network_list for existing networks or network_remove for cleanup. The description also omits prerequisites or context like needing a running Docker daemon.

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