list_lab_networks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly states that omitting network_id lists all networks, and providing a specific id returns one network. No contradictions found. However, it does not disclose side effects (none expected for a read operation), or behavior on invalid lab paths.

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 plus an Args block. No wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The Args block is clear and separates parameter descriptions from the main purpose.

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 there is an output schema, the description does not need to explain return format. The tool is a simple list/lookup with only 2 parameters. The description covers the dual behavior (list vs single lookup) adequately. Minor gap: no mention of what happens if lab_path is invalid.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes lab_path as 'Full path to the .unl lab file' and network_id as 'Specific network id, or omit to list all'. This adds meaningful prose beyond the raw schema properties, but could be more precise (e.g., file extension requirement, format constraints).

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all networks in a lab, or get a single network by id'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_lab_nodes, list_lab_links, and list_lab_pictures by specifying 'networks' as the target resource.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_lab_network or delete_lab_network. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., lab must be open) or when to omit network_id vs provide it.

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