vnet_list

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

No annotations provided. Description does not disclose behavioral traits such as scope (current subscription), permissiveness, pagination, or potential large responses. It only states the basic function, leaving the agent without safety or performance hints.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. Every word contributes to purpose and parameter explanation. Highly efficient.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter. Could mention that it lists all VNets in the subscription by default, but it's still minimal. Output schema compensates for return format details.

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 adds meaning to the only parameter: 'Optional resource group to filter by.' This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema (which only has a title and default). With 0% schema description coverage, this is valuable.

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?

Description clearly states 'List virtual networks in the subscription or resource group.' The verb 'list' and resource 'virtual networks' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vnet_show (which shows a single vnet) and vnet_create/delete (mutations).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like vnet_show or list_resources. The description implies listing but does not mention when to use other vnet tools for details or management. Adequate but lacks explicit context.

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