Get network

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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context: 'live-verified' field reliability, the empty-string caveat in ntpServerIpAddresses, and the conditional presence of ipv6Configuration. It does not disclose auth needs or rate limits, keeping it below a 5.

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 purpose is correctly front-loaded in the first four words, but the rest is a long comma-chained enumeration of return fields that the output schema already covers. It is information-dense rather than padded with filler, yet the field lists strain readability.

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 an output schema present, enumerating return fields is largely redundant, so the description's real contribution is the list-vs-get sparseness distinction and the empty-string caveat, both genuinely useful. For a 2-param read tool with full annotations and an output schema, nothing critical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (siteId, networkId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only 'by ID', which maps to networkId but contributes no new syntax or format meaning beyond the existing pattern constraint.

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 and resource ('Get a network/VLAN by ID') and explicitly names the sibling it differs from (unifi_list_networks), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 NOTE establishes a clear selection rule: this tool carries subnet/DHCP detail that the sparse list view lacks. It effectively tells the agent when to prefer this over unifi_list_networks, though it stops short of an explicit 'use this when you need full detail' phrasing or any prerequisites.

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