unifi_list_clients

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only list operation but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (offset/limit defaults), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or output format. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all connected clients') and includes essential qualifiers ('wired, wireless, VPN' and 'at a site') without waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, list operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination handling, error scenarios, or how it differs from similar list tools. For a tool that likely returns structured client data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (siteId, offset, limit, filter). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'site' context for siteId. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't compensate with extra context like filter expression examples.

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 action ('List all connected clients') and specifies the resource scope ('at a site'), with additional detail about client types ('wired, wireless, VPN'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'unifi_get_client' (singular) and 'unifi_list_devices' (different resource), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar list tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 alternatives like 'unifi_get_client' (for a specific client) or 'unifi_list_devices' (for hardware devices). It mentions the site context but doesn't explain prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases with sibling tools.

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