list_networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine scope context beyond that: the result is catalog metadata only, with no computed study results, which prevents the agent from expecting analysis output. It could say more about what fields each catalog entry carries, but the output schema handles that.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste. The enumeration of supported network classes comes first and the scope-limiting clause follows, so the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

With no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies everything needed to decide to call it. The only small gap is that it does not hint at how many entries to expect or whether the list is exhaustive across all supported studies.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not wrongly suggest any filtering options.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and concrete resource scope: ARENA/CSIRO 415 V LV feeders, 11-20 kV MV benchmarks, and NEM 132-500 kV substations. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling analysis tools (run_tier1_screen, run_tier2_ac_study, sweep_connection_capacities) because it explicitly frames itself as a catalog, not a computation.

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 exclusion sentence 'Does NOT run short-circuit or AC power-flow calculations' tells the agent when not to use it and implicitly routes calculation work to the run_*/sweep_* siblings. It stops short of naming the specific alternative to call instead, so it is clear context without an explicit routing instruction.

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