pbs_node_network_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It states READ-ONLY, so no destructive action. It mentions 'with config digest' which hints at the output including a checksum for change detection. It does not discuss permissions beyond the config requirement, but for a simple listing tool this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and read-only nature, then adding sibling guidance and config requirement. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, read-only nature, sibling alternative, config prerequisite, and the output includes config digest. The output schema further documents return values. No gaps remain.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters (node and proximo_target) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what is in 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 it lists network interfaces on a PBS node, specifying it is read-only and includes config digest. It distinguishes itself from a sibling tool (pbs_node_network_iface_get) by indicating that sibling is for retrieving a single interface's full config.

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 marks the tool as READ-ONLY, implying it is safe for listing. It explicitly suggests using pbs_node_network_iface_get for detailed config of one interface, and mentions a config requirement (PROXIMO_PBS_*). It does not comprehensively cover when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough.

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