list_private_networks

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

No annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the tool lists private networks and the default region behavior, but fails to disclose read-only nature, pagination, or any expected response characteristics beyond existence of output schema.

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?

Extremely concise and front-loaded. The key action and scope are in the first sentence, and the parameter detail is compact and useful 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, presence of an output schema, and the parameter's explaination, the description is largely sufficient. It slightly misses explicit when-to-use context, but for a straightforward list operation it covers the essentials.

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 description adds meaningful semantics to the 'region' parameter with concrete examples (fr-par, nl-ams) and default behavior, compensating for the schema's 0% description coverage.

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?

Clearly states 'List all private networks in a Scaleway region' with a specific verb and resource. Unambiguously differentiates from sibling create_private_network and aligns with the tool name.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the read-only counterpart to create_private_network, nor any scenario-based advice.

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