stellar_network_list

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't state that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation, doesn't describe what the output looks like (name list vs. table), and doesn't explain the effect of the `long` flag — all behavioral facts an agent would need.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler — appropriately sized for a simple list tool. It is arguably too sparse rather than verbose, but there is no wasted prose to penalize.

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 zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the minimum needed to invoke it is present. However, with no annotations, no output description, and a `long` flag whose effect is unexplained, the definition is only barely 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 description coverage is 100%, so both `long` and `configDir` are already documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, default, or interaction details beyond the schema text.

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?

"List configured networks" states a specific verb (List) and resource (networks) with the scoping qualifier "configured." It is clear on its own but does nothing to separate it from close siblings like stellar_network_info, stellar_network_settings, or stellar_network_health, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 gives no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus stellar_network_info/health/settings, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g. a config directory existing). With five network-related siblings, the absence of routing cues is a real gap.

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