List networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description contributes only the site scoping, saying nothing about pagination defaults, result ordering, or whether a filter is required for large sites — modest added value given paged list 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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — brevity is achieved by omitting needed information, not by tight writing.

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?

With no output schema and zero-documented pagination/filter parameters, the description needed to explain result shape, paging behavior, and filter syntax. It instead supplies only a scope phrase, leaving the agent guessing how to page through or narrow a large network list.

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% for three parameters (limit, filter, offset), and the description mentions none of them. The 'filter' parameter in particular needs expression syntax guidance, and limit/offset bounds (max 200) are only machine-readable. The description does not compensate at all for the coverage gap.

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 is a noun phrase ('Networks configured on the current site') rather than a verb+resource statement, so the listing action only comes from the name and title. It does add one real fact — the scope is the current site — but it does not distinguish this from siblings such as unifi_net_get_network, unifi_gen_getnetworksoverviewpage, or unifi_net_get_network_references.

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 versus the many alternatives: no mention of using get_network for a single network, list_networks for enumeration, or the gen_* overview tools. An agent must infer the choice from names alone.

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