unifi_list_networks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List all networks at a site' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't mention pagination behavior (offset/limit parameters), filtering capabilities, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about authentication, pagination behavior, filtering capabilities, and output format that would help an agent use it correctly.

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, providing clear documentation for all 4 parameters (siteId, offset, limit, filter). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 at a site' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('networks at a site'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'unifi_get_network' (which retrieves a specific network) or 'unifi_list_wifi' (which lists WiFi networks specifically), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'unifi_list_networks' over 'unifi_get_network' (for a single network) or 'unifi_list_wifi' (for WiFi-specific networks), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or site selection context.

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