list_supported_networks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or any limitations such as pagination or error behavior. The output fields are described, but behavioral traits beyond the core function are absent.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the action, scope, and output fields, then appends a practical usage hint. There is zero waste and the essential information is immediately available.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned (with specific fields) and how to use the results (key values for other tools). No additional context is necessary for an agent to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially empty). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related meaning because none exist. No compensation is needed.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('EVM networks Galactic Bridge supports'), and enumerates the output fields (chain key, chainId, eid, native gas symbol). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like scan_token_networks and find_bridge_route, which serve different purposes.

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?

It gives clear usage context by instructing to use the `key` values when calling other tools, implying this is a precursor step. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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