arvan_list_networks

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it lists both public and private networks and is region-scoped, which is useful but does not cover potential behaviors like pagination or default behavior when region is null.

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?

One-line description with no wasted words. Front-loaded with essential information. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 straightforward list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and scope. However, it omits details about return format and default behavior, which may leave the agent underinformed.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It mentions 'in a region' which implies the region parameter filters the list, but does not clarify format, allowed values, or behavior when null. The agent may be uncertain about how to specify the region.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'List' and specific resource 'networks (public and private)' with a scoping qualifier 'available in a region'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arvan_list_subnets or arvan_list_servers.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description imply it is for listing networks, there is no explicit mention of situations where it should or should not be used, nor are related tools referenced.

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