get_networks

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

The description declares 'Read-only operation' and explains what the tool returns, adding value beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation. It does not cover edge cases like site-not-found behavior, but for a simple read operation the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, read-only nature, return contents, alternatives, then parameters. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the argument block is clearly formatted.

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 read-only listing tool, the description is complete: it specifies scope, returned fields, the fact that it is safe/non-mutating, and how to route to alternative tools. Since no output schema exists, including the returned field list is especially valuable.

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 100%, so the parameter descriptions already document both arguments. The description repeats the same parameter semantics rather than adding new meaning, though it does reinforce that 'site' is the primary scope and 'device' is optional.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get all network/VLAN configurations for a site.' It also lists the exact returned fields (name, purpose, VLAN id, subnet CIDR, DHCP settings), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_wlans and create_network/update_network/delete_network.

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 description explicitly names alternatives and their contexts: use create_network/update_network/delete_network for changes, and get_wlans for wireless networks. This gives an agent clear routing guidance without needing to inspect sibling schemas.

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