List networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the list view is explicitly 'sparse', dhcpGuarding is 'only present when enabled', and metadata.configurable appears only on the system-defined default network. It does not mention pagination behavior (limit/offset interplay), which keeps it from 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scoping, then enumerates the return fields in a compact clause-run. It is information-dense rather than padded, though the long comma-separated field list and the trailing NOTE make it slightly dense to scan.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description usefully documents the actual returned fields and their conditional presence, and it routes the agent to unifi_get_network for detail the list omits. For a 4-parameter read tool with no destructive behavior, nothing an agent needs to call it 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 description coverage is 100% — limit, filter, offset and siteId are all documented in the schema itself, including the API default of 25 and a filter expression example. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List all networks (VLANs/LAN segments) at a site') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling unifi_get_network by scoping itself to the sparse list view. An agent can tell what this returns and how it differs from the get-by-id tool 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?

Explicit routing: 'for subnet/DHCP/NTP detail ... call unifi_get_network on a specific id' names the alternative and the condition that selects it, and 'pair with unifi_get_network_references to find what consumes a network' gives a second concrete use. The 'Use for: VLAN inventory' clause adds a positive trigger.

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