unifi_list_devices

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

The description does not disclose how pagination works, whether it returns all devices at once or paginated, or any other behavioral aspects. With no annotations, the agent has no information about read safety or potential performance implications.

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 with no unnecessary words, but it could be more structured, e.g., by mentioning pagination or return format. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has multiple pagination parameters but the description does not explain how pagination works or what the response contains. Without an output schema, the agent may not know that the response is a list of devices with certain fields. The description is too brief given the parameter set.

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 already documents all 6 parameters with descriptions, including default values and enums. The description only adds a generic mention of 'optional filtering', which does not significantly enhance the semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly states the resource (UniFi devices) and provides examples of types (switches, APs, gateways), and notes optional filtering. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like unifi_list_clients or unifi_get_device_details.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools like unifi_get_device_details or unifi_list_clients. It does not specify that this is for listing multiple devices, while others are for single or different resource types.

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