Get network

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of what the detail payload includes, whether references/associations are expanded, or what happens when the id is unknown.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, so there is no waste. But it is a bare fragment that is concise by virtue of omission rather than by careful editing.

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 single-param read tool with good annotations, the bar is low, but the agent still cannot tell what the response contains or how to supply the id. No output schema exists to fill that gap, so the description should have done more.

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 single required parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema gives the agent only the name "id" and type string. The description does not clarify whether this is the network's UUID, internal reference, or a human-readable name, leaving the one parameter that matters undocumented.

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?

"Detail for one network" implies retrieving a single network object, and the singular "one" distinguishes it from unifi_net_list_networks. However the verb is a noun fragment rather than a specific action, and it does not say what "detail" contains or how the network is identified. Vague purpose rather than a clear verb+resource statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this instead of siblings such as unifi_net_list_networks, unifi_net_get_network_references, or unifi_gen_getnetworkdetails. The only implied usage is the singular vs. list contrast, which the agent must infer.

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