network_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'List all WSL networks,' which essentially restates the name and implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., running Docker daemon), return format details, or potential edge cases. This is minimal and lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters and full schema coverage, the one-sentence description is adequate but leaves gaps: there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what information is included in the returned list or that the output format can be table or JSON. The format parameter hints at this, but it's not explicitly stated.

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 documents both parameters (quiet and format) with descriptive text and defaults, covering 100% of the parameter semantics. The description adds no further parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all WSL networks'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like network_create and network_remove that perform different operations on the same resource class.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: whenever one needs to enumerate all WSL networks. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but no direct alternative exists among the sibling tools for listing networks, so the context is clear without exclusions.

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