List Network sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope caveat about which sites are returned, but says nothing about pagination behavior (relevant given limit/offset) or how results are ordered/truncated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical caveat is the highest-value piece of information and is given immediately.

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 zero-required-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema and full schema documentation, the description covers purpose, scope and the key ambiguity. Only the shape of returned site records is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 100%, with limit, filter and offset all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes nothing about the 'vendor filter expression' parameter or pagination semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 (lists) and resource (local sites exposed by the Network application), and adds a parenthetical excluding Site Manager sites, which disambiguates from close siblings such as unifi_sm_list_sites. It stops short of distinguishing itself from unifi_gen_listsites, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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 'NOT the same as Site Manager sites' note implies when to prefer this over the Site Manager variant, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and the relationship to unifi_gen_listsites / unifi_gen_listsites is left unstated.

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