list_networks

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals a non-obvious behavioral trait: the tool infers per-project topology from service port configuration rather than listing actual Docker networks. This is critical context and prevents a wrong mental model of what the tool returns.

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 filler, with the key behavioral caveat placed immediately after the main purpose. Every sentence contributes essential 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?

With no parameters and an output schema present, the description provides all needed behavioral context: what the tool does, why it exists, and how it derives its results. Nothing critical is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameters need semantic elaboration.

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 identifies the tool as an analyzer of EasyPanel network topology, not a direct Docker network lister. It explicitly distinguishes the tool's behavior from what the name might suggest, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from create_network and delete_network.

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 establishes the appropriate context: use this tool to analyze network topology, especially since Docker networks are not directly exposed via the tRPC API. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or route to alternatives like create_network/delete_network, but the analytical scope is clearly implied.

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