network_list_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only 'List networks' and does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether it returns all networks, or how the optional filter affects results. This adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.

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?

'List networks' is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It is efficient for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema (though not shown), and the input schema fully documents the only parameter. The description is minimally adequate for a basic list operation, but it lacks usage context such as noting the optional filter or directing to network_inspect_tool for details, which would improve completeness.

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% for the single 'filters' parameter, which already includes a description ('Filter by key/value pairs'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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 'List networks' clearly states the action (list) and resource (networks). It distinguishes from network_inspect_tool by implying enumeration rather than inspection, though it does not explicitly mention scope or alternatives.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus network_inspect_tool or other sibling list tools. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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