getLanNetworkList

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that this is a read-only list operation and indicates the kind of data returned, but it does not mention potential behavioral details such as whether an empty list is possible, whether siteId must reference an existing site, or whether any filtering/pagination behavior applies.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core operation, and no filler. Every phrase adds useful information about scope or return content.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description covers the resource, the site scoping, and the expected content of the result. However, it omits any explicit guidance on the siteId parameter or on how this tool relates to sibling LAN network tools, leaving some gaps for the agent to fill.

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 0% and the description never explicitly mentions siteId or its role. The phrase 'in a site' is only an indirect hint that the single parameter scopes the request. Since the description must compensate for the lack of schema documentation, this is insufficient.

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 clearly states the operation ('Get the list') and the specific resource ('LAN networks configured in a site'), and it adds concrete scope details (VLAN settings, IP ranges, DHCP configuration). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like createLanNetwork, updateLanNetwork, deleteLanNetwork, and getSsidList.

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 usage is implied by the purpose: use this when you need the LAN network inventory for a site. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as create/update/deleteLanNetwork for modifications, leaving some routing to the agent's inference.

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