network_connect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Connect a container to a network' communicates the core mutation but does not mention whether the container must be running, whether the network must already exist, whether prior connections change, idempotence, or what the response contains. This is thin for a state-changing operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient and easy to parse, though its brevity contributes to missing context rather than being a structural flaw.

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 modifying operation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not clarify key operational context such as network existence, container state, whether aliases are allowed/required, or what happens on failure or success. The schema covers parameters but not usage conditions or side effects.

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% parameter description coverage, including clear explanations for network, container, and alias. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already handles that burden, so the baseline score of 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 specific verb ('Connect') and resource ('a container to a network'), which clearly distinguishes it from network-level siblings like create_network and remove_network. An agent can tell this tool attaches an existing container to a network rather than managing networks themselves.

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 action itself implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no stated prerequisites such as the network or container already existing. Usage context is left to inference rather than spelled out.

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