ListNetworks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify output format (e.g., paginated list), error conditions, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'network resources' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, though it could benefit from slightly more detail to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., pagination behavior implied by PageSize/PageNumber), output format, and error handling. The agent must rely heavily on the input schema alone, leaving context incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all parameters (ResourceGroupId, PageSize, PageNumber, SortBy). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying resource group filtering, which is already covered in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 '获取资源组网络资源列表' (Get resource group network resource list) clearly states the action (get/list) and target (network resources in a resource group), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other list tools like ListResources, ListNodes, or ListRoutes, leaving the scope vague regarding what 'network resources' specifically means.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like GetNetwork (which might fetch a single network) or other list tools. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.

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