umbrella_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. It clearly conveys a read-only listing operation and scopes results to the organization, which is adequate for a simple list call. However, it does not disclose pagination defaults, response shape, or any API-specific behavior such as rate limits or required auth, so transparency is only partial.

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 entire description is one tight, front-loaded sentence. Every phrase earns its place: the action, the resource, the disambiguating parenthetical, and the scope. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple read-only list tool with fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete. It gives the agent enough to call it correctly with no parameters or with pagination params. The main gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation and any note about response format, but those are minor given the simplicity and the clarity of the current description.

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%: limit, offset, and additionalParams are all already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, and none is needed, 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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the exact resource ('Cisco Umbrella networks'), and adds scope ('registered to this organization') plus a clarifying parenthetical ('public IP identities'). The parenthetical also implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling umbrella_list_internal_networks, making the tool's identity clear.

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 states the organizational scope and clarifies that these are public IP identities, giving an agent clear context for choosing this tool over the similar-sounding umbrella_list_internal_networks. However, it does not explicitly say 'use this for public networks, use the other for internal networks,' so it stops short of fully explicit routing guidance.

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