network_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' in the description earns no credit. What it does add is that results reflect live reachability ('whether it answers'), which hints at probing, plus the operational note to set projectPath when the server isn't started from the project root. It doesn't say how expensive or slow the probe is, however.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by usage guidance and the parameter note. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is filler.

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 output schema, the description does the job of describing the return shape (URL, base path, port, running/stopped), which is the key gap it needed to cover. It's slightly thin on how the optional `stack` filter changes the result set and on whether 'every service' truly means all stacks.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description adds a condition for `projectPath` ('when the MCP server is not running from the project root') that goes beyond the schema's 'absolute path' wording, but it never mentions the `stack` filter at all.

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 specific resource (Traefik URL of every frontend and API service) and the exact fields returned (base path, port, running/stopped). It also distinguishes itself from a sibling by pointing to `status` for full readiness, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

It states a concrete use case ('find where to open a service') and names the alternative (`status` for full readiness). What's missing is an explicit 'don't use this when...' boundary against other listing siblings such as `resource_list` or `stack_list`.

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