unifi_get_network

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

The description lists return fields but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. Since no annotations are provided, the burden is on the description, which is moderately transparent.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and output. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool, the description covers the return fields but lacks parameter details and usage context. Without output schema or annotations, it is moderately 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It only mentions return fields, not what network_id or site_id represent. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but 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 tool retrieves full details for a single network, listing specific return fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unifi_list_networks which likely returns summaries.

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?

While the usage is implied (get details for one network), there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like list_networks, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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