unifi_get_network

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

The annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat that. It adds value beyond the schema by summarizing the exact fields returned (e.g., 'live-verified' flags, ipv4Configuration, ipv6Configuration) and the contrast with the list view. This gives the agent concrete expectations about the response richness, which is useful context beyond what the output schema alone conveys.

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 a single dense paragraph, but every sentence carries important information: the core purpose, the full list of returned fields, and the critical distinction from the list tool. It is front-loaded with the primary action and then details, with no redundant fluff. The length is justified by the richness of the response it describes.

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?

Given that the tool has only two parameters, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it returns, and when to choose it over a sibling. There is nothing an agent would need to know to call this tool correctly that is missing.

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?

Both parameters (siteId, networkId) have minimal schema descriptions ('Site ID', 'Network ID') with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage context for these parameters, so it does not improve on what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Get a network/VLAN by ID') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling list tool by noting the extra fields returned. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly differentiates it from unifi_list_networks.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool over the list variant: 'subnet/DHCP detail appears here at get-by-id but NOT in unifi_list_networks (sparse list view).' This provides a clear decision rule for selecting the appropriate tool based on the need for detailed network configuration.

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