list_networks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description implies a read-only query by stating it 'lists' current session state, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it describe any error conditions or performance characteristics. While it does disclose what information is returned, it could be more explicit about the absence of side effects.

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 is concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core function and output fields, and the second sentence adds a specific use case. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler. It is a model of efficiency.

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 simple no-parameter list tool without an output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does, when to use it, and what information it returns (id, source file, whether results exist). It does not detail the exact return format, but that is not critical for such a simple operation. The description is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The schema is empty, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, as the description cannot add extra meaning beyond what is already absent.

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 the action ('List') and the resource ('networks currently loaded in this server session'), and specifies the exact data fields returned (id, source file, whether results exist). This is specific enough to differentiate it from sibling tools like load_network (which loads) or get_network_summary (which focuses on a single 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 provides a concrete use case: 'Use to recover a network id after losing it.' This gives the agent clear guidance on when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly list alternatives for other scenarios, but the context implies that other tools exist for loading, summarizing, or modifying networks, so the guidance is adequate.

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