unifi_list_clients

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes a read operation but doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or what 'connected' means (e.g., excludes historical clients). The agent must infer these from the schema.

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 sentence of 9 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words; efficient communication.

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?

Given the schema covers all parameters, the description is minimal but adequate for a list operation. It could mention pagination (since parameters exist) or the return format, but the schema provides the details. The output schema is absent, so the agent relies on tool behavior.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'optional filtering' which is already implied by the filter parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists connected clients with optional filtering, but it doesn't specify that listing is paginated or whether disconnected clients are excluded. The verb 'list' and resource 'clients' are clear, but the scope could be more precise.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like unifi_get_client_details or unifi_get_client_stats, nor does it indicate when to use filtering vs. other tools.

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