iaas_get_networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the HTTP route — no pagination behavior, no filtering/tenant scoping semantics, nothing about what 'all' spans in a multi-tenant or multi-cloud inventory.

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 lines say the same thing three times ("Get networks", "Get all networks", "GET /iaas/api/networks"). It is short but redundant rather than dense; the third line is pure restatement of the name.

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 and no annotations covering return shape, the description should explain what a 'network' record contains at a minimum and how listing behaves. Instead it is an OpenAPI route stub, leaving the agent unable to distinguish this inventory from the several other network-listing tools.

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?

There is a single optional apiVersion parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the burden. The description adds no meaning, but baseline 3 applies when the schema is complete.

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 verb and resource are clear ("Get all networks"), and the scope is list-all rather than by-ID. However, the sibling set contains iaas_get_network, iaas_get_fabric_networks, iaas_get_vsphere_fabric_networks and iaas_get_network_profiles, and the description gives no basis for telling these apart.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no naming of the clearly competing siblings (fabric networks vs. networks). The agent must infer selection purely from tool names.

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