liara_list_networks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List all networks' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what 'all' means in context (e.g., all accessible networks vs all in account). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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 maximally concise at three words with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.

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 list operation with 4 pagination parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'network' is in this context, what fields are returned, error conditions, or how the pagination parameters interact. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

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 100% description coverage with clear parameter documentation, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how pagination works, default values, or relationships between parameters like 'page/perPage' versus 'limit/offset'. The schema does the heavy lifting here.

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 all networks' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('networks'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'liara_get_network' (singular) and 'liara_create_network', but doesn't specify scope or filtering details that might differentiate it from other list tools in the server.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus 'liara_get_network' for single network details, or how it relates to other list operations in the system. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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