getLanNetworks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a real content disclosure beyond the annotations — that returned data contains no SSID passwords — which tells the agent what sensitive fields will and won't be present. It stops short of describing return shape or pagination.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the non-obvious security detail second. No redundant restatement of the tool name or annotations.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition provides enough to call it correctly. The one remaining gap is the meaning/format of siteId, which neither the schema nor description resolves.

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 coverage is 0%, so the schema gives no meaning for siteId beyond type and minLength. The phrase 'the selected site' loosely ties the parameter to a site identifier, but the description never names siteId or says whether it accepts a numeric or string ID. It partially compensates for the coverage gap without fully closing it.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (VLAN/subnet/DHCP settings for a site), which is concrete enough for an agent to know what it returns. It doesn't explicitly name itself relative to siblings, but the siblings listed (listSites, listDevices, getConnectionStatus) cover different resources, so confusion risk is low.

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?

'For the selected site' implies the tool is site-scoped and requires a site context, which is the only usage hint. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named among the siblings.

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