list_integration_networks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'List' implying read-only, and pagination via limit/offset, but lacks explicit statements about side effects, authentication requirements, or error behaviors.

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?

The description uses a docstring format with separate sections, which is structured but slightly verbose. It contains a brief one-liner and then bulleted args/returns, which is acceptable but not extremely concise.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description only says 'Paginated list of integration API networks' without detailing the return fields. It also omits error conditions, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 description must compensate. The Args section adds meaning for site_id, limit, and offset, but also lists a 'settings' parameter not present in the schema, causing confusion. The explanations are minimal and one is incorrect.

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 states 'List networks via the integration API', specifying the verb (list), resource (networks), and API scope (integration API). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like list_integration_clients or list_integration_devices.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as connector_network_get (which might retrieve a single network) or other list tools. The description lacks usage context or prerequisites.

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