gatekeeper_list_networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'Docker networks' scope; it does not mention return format or any observable behavior beyond listing, but for a zero-argument read-only tool this is an acceptable baseline.

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 entire description is a single clear three-word sentence with no redundant phrases or repeated schema information. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 parameterless listing operation, the description, along with the read-only/idempotent annotations, fully supports correct selection and invocation. There is no missing prerequisite, argument, or side-effect information that an agent would need.

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 input schema has no properties, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because 0 parameters make documentation trivially sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('Docker networks'), so an agent can immediately identify the tool's domain and distinguish it from sibling tools like list_docker_containers or list_wifi_networks.

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 intended use is clear: call this tool when Docker networks need to be enumerated. No exclusions or alternative tools are stated, but there is no sibling that also lists Docker networks, so no further routing guidance is necessary.

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