list_networks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it exceptionally well. It discloses offset pagination, default page size 25, automatic draining, the {data, totalCount} response shape, manual page control via offset/limit, upstream passthrough of the filter parameter, and the incomplete flag for capped drains. This goes far beyond typical descriptions.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, parameter formats, pagination behavior, and filter semantics. There is no filler or restating of the tool name. The most important scoping statement is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details do not need restatement. All invocation-critical information is present: required identifiers, optional pagination controls, filter syntax and passthrough, and the incomplete-drain signal. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool 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 0%, so the description must define all parameters, and it does. Host and site get concrete accepted-format explanations (console name/ID, composite ID; site name/ID). Filter is explained with real examples and the 'forwarded unchanged' behavior. Offset and limit are tied to the manual-pagination path, making their semantic role clear.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all networks/VLANs for a site.' This clearly identifies the operation as a site-scoped bulk listing, distinguishing it from siblings like get_network (single record) and list_port_profiles (different entity). An agent can select this tool without ambiguity.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: listing all networks for a specific site, with host/site identifiers explained. It also explains the default drain-all-pages behavior versus passing offset/limit for a manual page. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use get_network for a single network,' so exclusions are 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.