Network List Tool

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, and it discloses essentially nothing: no read-only confirmation, no note that the optional filter is a key/value match, no indication of result size or ordering. 'List' weakly implies a non-mutating read, which is the only behavioral signal available.

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 words, front-loaded with the verb, with zero wasted text — but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision given the available routing information for sibling list/inspect tools.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and only a fragment of a sentence, the definition omits any disambiguation from network_inspect_tool and any guidance on the filters parameter, leaving the agent to guess.

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% and the single parameter 'filters' is documented in the schema as 'Filter by key/value pairs' with a default of null. The description adds no syntax, matching semantics, or examples beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a clear verb+resource pair ('List networks'), so an agent immediately knows this returns network entities rather than containers, pods, volumes, or images. It does not differentiate from the closest sibling, network_inspect_tool, nor state scope (all networks vs. filtered).

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative network_inspect_tool for detailed single-network data, and no note about when the optional filters argument is appropriate. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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