list_networks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral details about the data returned, specifically that the 'default' network (VLAN 1) is the untagged LAN and additional networks use VLAN IDs >= 2. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 only three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the function, giving a usage example, and providing a key detail about VLAN ID conventions. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only list tool. It mentions the key fields returned (VLAN IDs, DHCP, status) and an important note about the default network. Given the annotations cover safety and idempotency, no further information is needed.

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?

The schema covers the single parameter 'filter' with a description ('UniFi filter expression'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning to this parameter, which is acceptable since the schema already explains it.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all network configurations including VLAN IDs, DHCP settings, and status.' The verb 'list' and resource 'network configurations' are specific, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools like list_clients or list_devices.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Check for proper network segmentation — IoT devices should be on a separate VLAN from your main network.' This tells the user when to use this tool (for segmentation audits). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough.

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