Code MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Manage' implies both read and write operations, but there's no information about permissions required, side effects, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens when networks are modified. For a tool with multiple action types (including destructive ones like 'remove'), this is critically insufficient.

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 extremely concise at just two words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It's front-loaded in the sense that there's nothing to structure, but it fails to convey necessary information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters including destructive actions), absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens during different actions, or provide any context about Docker network management. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based solely on this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds zero additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Manage Docker networks' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'docker_networks'. While it indicates the domain (Docker networks), it doesn't specify what management actions are available or what resources are involved. It provides no differentiation from sibling Docker tools like docker_containers or docker_images.

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 provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when to choose this over other Docker tools, or what specific network management scenarios it addresses. The agent must infer everything from the parameter schema alone.

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