network_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'List networks in a unit,' revealing a read-only intent but not disclosing pagination defaults, filtering behavior, sorting semantics, permission requirements, or possible result limits. This is a minimal but shallow disclosure.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it could carry more useful context without becoming verbose.

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 five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain return shape, pagination behavior, filter semantics, or how it differs from nearby network tools. Agents would need to infer too much.

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 the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds the 'unit' scoping context, reinforcing the required unit parameter, but provides no additional meaning beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List networks in a unit.' This distinguishes it from network_get (single item), network_count (count), and mutation tools like network_create/update/delete. It does not explicitly contrast with network_route_list, but the 'networks' resource is clearly identified.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as network_count or network_get. The phrasing implies listing use cases, but there are no explicit when-to-use rules, exclusions, or references to sibling tools.

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