Список сетей

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It's a read/list tool and the description conveys read intent ('Возвращает поддерживаемые сети'), but it doesn't disclose return format, default behavior when mode is omitted, or pagination. It does clarify the mode default ('По умолчанию — все') which adds some value.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first states the purpose, the second provides a practical usage tip. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 discovery tool with optional single parameter and 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It could mention that mainnet is the operational default or clarify testnet applicability, but the network-key guidance meaningfully promotes correct usage across the sibling tool suite.

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 coverage is 100% with the mode parameter fully documented in the schema (enum with descriptions). The description adds marginal value by clarifying the default ('По умолчанию — все'), and its main instruction about using network keys relates to tool output, not parameters. Baseline 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 states a clear purpose: returns supported networks and their CCTP domains. It adds a useful cross-tool guideline (use returned network keys like 'base', 'arbitrum' in other tools), which helps distinguish its discovery role from siblings like bridge_start or bridge_quote.

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 explicitly instructs when to use the output — to supply network keys to other bridge tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though its discovery nature is implied against the operational siblings present.

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