unifi_list_networks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' indicates a read-only operation, which is a key behavioral trait, but the description does not mention potential side effects, permissions, rate limits, or response format. It adds minimal context beyond the operation name.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs all key information without any filler. It is concise and well-structured, with every word contributing to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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?

For a parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description provides a clear and fairly complete picture of what the tool returns. It covers the main network configuration attributes, though it could be more explicit about the response format (e.g., array of objects) or include use cases, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to know when and how to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the exact data returned (subnets, VLANs, gateway IPs, DHCP ranges, DNS settings), which is valuable since the input schema is empty and there is no other source of semantic detail.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('configured network subnets, VLANs, gateway IPs, DHCP ranges, and DNS settings'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like unifi_list_wlans or unifi_list_devices by enumerating the exact network configuration details returned.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to view network configuration details) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like unifi_list_wlans. There are no alternative tool references or exclusion criteria, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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