network_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. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or requires specific authentication. The description only states the basic function without addressing potential behavioral impacts.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear one-line summary followed by a parameter listing. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more streamlined. Every sentence contributes meaning, earning a high score.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple list tool given the presence of an output schema (which explains return values). However, it lacks information about error conditions (e.g., invalid site_id) and any preconditions. This is acceptable but could be more complete.

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 description includes detailed parameter documentation (Args section) with meanings and defaults for limit, offset, and site_id, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. It adds value beyond the schema, though it could be more explicit about parameter formats or constraints (e.g., site_id format).

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 action ('List'), resource ('all configured networks (VLANs)'), and scope ('on a local UniFi site'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling list tools like network_list_devices and network_list_clients by specifying VLANs.

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 the tool is used to retrieve a list of networks but does not provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives such as network_list_wifi for Wi-Fi networks or network_list_firewall_zones for firewall zones. Adding explicit context would improve this dimension.

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