list_networks

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

The description is minimal and goes no further than what the verb 'list' implies. There is no mention of potential pagination, error handling, permission requirements, or whether the environment ID must be valid. With no annotations provided, this lack of behavioral disclosure is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no unnecessary words. It earns its place without any fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one well-documented parameter, no output schema), the description conveys the basic purpose. However, it lacks any usage context, return-value details, or behavioral notes, making it only minimally complete for operational use.

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%—the only parameter, environmentId, is uniquely described as 'Portainer environment ID'. The description adds no additional meaning about this parameter or how it affects the listing, so it provides no extra value beyond the schema.

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), the resource (Docker networks), and the scope (in an environment). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on different resources like containers, images, or volumes.

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 list_containers or list_volumes. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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