Inspect a network

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope detail that attached containers are included, but says nothing about error behavior for a missing network or any resolution rules beyond the schema's pattern.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the most informative items are front-loaded. It is a sentence fragment rather than a full statement, which slightly weakens structure but wastes nothing.

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 an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return values, and the annotations carry the safety profile, so the essentials are covered. The one gap is routing guidance versus list_networks/inspect_container, which matters in a 40+ sibling tool set.

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 'network' parameter is already documented as 'name or id, as its list gives it'. The description adds no further syntax or format meaning, 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 names the resource (a network) and enumerates the concrete details returned (driver, subnet, internal flag, attached containers), so an agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It lacks an explicit verb, relying on the title 'Inspect a network', and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_networks or inspect_container.

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 guidance on when to use this over list_networks (broad listing) or how it relates to inspect_container for the attached containers. The description is purely a content statement with no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives named.

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