openstack_list_networks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List networks' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe what the response contains, whether it requires special permissions, how the device_id parameter affects the result, or any pagination/limitation behavior. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool's name.

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 sentence, 'List networks in OpenStack (Neutron)', which is concise and front-loaded. There is no wasted wording. For the simplicity of the operation, this length is appropriate and earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks essential contextual details. It does not explain what the returned list contains, why a device_id is required, or any scope limitations. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by providing at least a brief note on the response format or the purpose of the device_id. The description is minimally viable but not complete.

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 coverage is 100%: the parameter 'device_id' is described as 'OpenStack device ID'. The tool description does not mention the parameter or add any context about how it is used. Since the schema already documents the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance understanding beyond 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 the action (List) and the resource (networks in OpenStack). The parenthetical '(Neutron)' further clarifies the OpenStack networking service, distinguishing it from sibling tools like openstack_list_subnets or openstack_list_routers. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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. Unlike the calibration example that names a sibling tool for filtered searches, this description simply states what the tool does without any contextual cues about selection criteria or exclusions. The agent gets no help in deciding between this and similar 'list' tools.

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