unifi_list_networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: the list view omits ipv4Configuration/ipv6Configuration and the semantic meanings of fields like default, zoneId, and metadata.origin. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the note about sparse views precedes usage guidance, which is the right priority order. The field enumeration slightly overlaps with the output schema, but it adds semantic gloss (e.g., 'default (true for the default network)') that justifies its place. Dense but not padded.

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 and read-only annotations, the description covers what remains: purpose, return shape, the sparse-view caveat, and routing to sibling tools. The only thin area is filter-expression semantics, which belongs to the schema anyway. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely and correctly 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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions and default/max values for limit and offset already in the input schema. The description ties siteId to site scope ('at a site') but adds no parameter syntax or filter-format details; baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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?

Begins with a specific verb-resource pair: 'List all networks (VLANs/LAN segments) at a site', defining the ambiguous term 'network' as VLANs/LAN segments. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting the sparse list view with unifi_get_network for detail.

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 explicit when-to-use ('Use for: VLAN inventory'), explicit when-not-to-use ('the list view is sparse — for subnet/DHCP/NTP detail... call unifi_get_network on a specific id'), and a pairing strategy with unifi_get_network_references. No inference is required from the agent.

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