docker_networks

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'List Docker networks'. It does not reveal whether all networks are listed, if any filtering applies, or what the output contains. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged to add context.

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 of three words, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks any structure or additional sentences that could provide context without being verbose. It earns its place for simplicity but could be slightly more informative.

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 (zero parameters, a list operation), the description is minimally adequate. The existence of an output schema covers return values, but the description does not clarify the scope (e.g., 'all networks on the host') or any behavioral details. It is complete enough for a basic list but lacks contextual richness.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but for a parameterless tool, the baseline of 4 is appropriate. No information is missing regarding parameters.

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 'List Docker networks' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Docker networks'), clearly stating its function. It unambiguously distinguishes itself from sibling tools like docker_ps (lists containers) and docker_images (lists images).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as 'for detailed network info use docker_inspect' or 'use this to see all networks on the host'. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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