list_networks

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 behavioral disclosure. The description only states the basic action (list) but doesn't disclose details like whether the operation is safe (read-only), whether it requires specific privileges, or what happens if the node is invalid. It also doesn't mention the output format beyond the schema, though the output schema exists.

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 plus a parameter hint in a structured format. It is extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, with zero waste.

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 has a simple action (list) with one parameter and an output schema. The description captures the essential purpose and the parameter, but given that no annotations exist, it could add more context like whether this is a read-only operation or the types of interfaces included. It's adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameter meaning. It does explain that 'node' is the 'Name of the Proxmox node (e.g. 'pve')', which adds a concrete example and clarifies the expected value. This is helpful but minimal.

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 'List network interfaces, bridges, and bonds on a Proxmox node', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_storages or list_vms, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the node-status tools.

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 implies the tool is used to list network information for a given node, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_node_status) or mention any prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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