ndfc_get_networks

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

The description indicates a read operation ('Get list'), which implies non-destructiveness, but does not explicitly state behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but only offers a minimal safety profile.

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 short but includes redundant 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections that merely echo the schema. It could be more concise by integrating the parameter into a single sentence without structured formatting.

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?

Despite its simplicity, the description covers the purpose, the sole parameter, and the return structure (including network names, VLANs, configuration). This provides sufficient context for a basic list tool without an output schema.

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 description restates the parameter as 'Name of the fabric,' which adds no semantic value beyond the schema's title and type. With only one parameter and no additional constraints or formatting details, the description does not enhance understanding.

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 'Get list of networks in a specific fabric,' which includes a specific verb and resource. While it distinguishes from generic siblings like ndfc_get_fabrics, it does not explicitly contrast with more specific network-related siblings such as ndfc_get_network_preview or ndfc_get_network_status.

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 lacks any mention of context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the purpose.

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