list_networks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and adds the conditional detail that IP service configuration is included only 'where available'. This is sufficient transparency for a simple list operation.

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. Every phrase contributes either the resource, its scope, or the conditional output content.

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 zero-argument list operation, the description fully covers what is being listed, the relevant hardware families, and the availability of IP service configuration. No output schema exists, but the return content is sufficiently implied by the description.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the schema to explain. The description adds semantic context by specifying which types of logical networks are listed, which is helpful despite the absence of parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('logical networks'), and enumerates the scope (Premium/Quantum: Ethernet, Modbus Plus, Fipway). This clearly distinguishes the read-only list operation from mutating sibling tools like add_network and set_network_ip.

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 intended usage is implied by 'List' and the network-focused description, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. An agent can infer when this tool is appropriate, but the description does not state it directly.

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