unifi_list_networks

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: summaries exclude keys/VPN configuration, the site defaults to UNIFI_SITE, and offset/limit affect only tool output rather than the controller fetch. This helps the agent understand response scope and pagination semantics.

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 only two sentences and wastes no words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful behavioral nuance about offset/limit without repeating schema information.

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 an output schema, this description covers purpose, default site behavior, scoping of returned summaries, and pagination semantics. The main gap is that it does not explicitly discuss sibling-tool alternatives, but the resource names make the intended context reasonably discoverable.

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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies that 'site' defaults to UNIFI_SITE and that offset/limit bound tool output rather than the underlying fetch, which adds real meaning beyond the raw schema types and defaults. It does not fully detail all parameter interactions, but it compensates well given the simplicity of the parameters.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List network summaries'. It also adds scope by excluding keys and VPN configuration, which immediately differentiates this from a full network-detail tool. The sibling tools target other resources (sites, devices, clients), so the resource focus makes its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool—when a summary list of networks is needed—and notes the UNIFI_SITE default, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools, so an agent must infer routing from the resource name.

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