List classic networks

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds real traits on top: the result is 'whole and unpaged' (no pagination to handle), rows expose only output-schema fields, and credentials are never returned. It also discloses the ID-space hazard between classic and Integration APIs, which no annotation covers.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and data source before the routing guidance and the ID caveat. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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, return values need not be enumerated, and the description still notes scope, unpaged behavior and credential redaction. Combined with clear sibling routing and the ID-interoperability warning, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret results.

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% and the siteReference property already documents that it takes the internalReference from unifi_list_sites rather than the Integration API UUID. The description adds no further syntax or format guidance for the parameter, so it sits at the baseline where the schema does the work.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource and pins down the exact backend surface ('the site's networks from the classic controller API (rest/networkconf)'), which immediately separates it from the Integration API sibling unifi_list_networks. An agent can tell which of the two list tools it wants without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit positive case ('use it to resolve the classic network IDs legacy firewall rules reference') and an explicit default for all other cases ('for everything else prefer unifi_list_networks'), naming the alternative directly. It also states a hard exclusion: do not pass these _id values to an Integration API tool or the reverse.

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