list_network_boxes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that node membership is returned per box; it says nothing about whether listing recurses into nested networks, ordering, size or pagination of results, or read-only/error behavior.

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?

A single tight sentence with no wasted words and the key noun front-loaded. Nothing is missing structurally, though one short clause about the parent path argument would have paid for itself.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description should still tell the agent what identifies the target network (parent_path) and roughly what comes back. Neither is covered, so an agent must guess the meaning and granularity of the results.

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% and the description never mentions the single parameter parent_path, its default '/stage', or what a path means relative to 'a network'. The one documented clue, 'in a network', is too indirect to explain the argument.

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?

Specific verb 'List' plus resource 'network boxes (backdrops)' with the parenthetical disambiguating jargon, and it notes the payload includes the nodes inside each box. It doesn't distinguish itself from the many sibling list_* tools or from get_network_overview, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 framing 'in a network' hints that this is scoped to one network's contents, which implies usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of prerequisites or alternatives such as get_network_overview, and no exclusions.

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