List Docker networks

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it states that container membership is 'sanitized' and that labels and driver options are omitted. This informs the agent about data fidelity and privacy/security handling, which is helpful for interpreting results.

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 two sentences with zero fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a single clarification about exclusions. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a simple list operation with one optional parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. It mentions omissions and sanitization. It doesn't explain the effect of environment_id or output format, but the schema covers the parameter and the tool is straightforward, so the description is reasonably 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?

The input schema already covers the single parameter (environment_id) with a description and pattern, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter or add any usage semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool lists network-related information (driver, internal flag, IPAM ranges, and sanitized container membership) and explicitly notes what is omitted (labels and driver options). It identifies the resource (Docker networks) and the verb (lists), but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_network_summary, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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?

Usage is implied through the listed fields: if you need network driver, internal flag, IPAM ranges, or container membership, this tool provides them. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_network_summary, nor any mention of environment filtering despite the optional environment_id parameter. The context signals reveal siblings but the description itself gives no comparative direction.

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