unifi_list_firewall_zones

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'List' but not explicit), pagination behavior (though schema hints at offset/limit), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format might be. The description adds minimal value beyond the 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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (list operation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It covers the basic purpose but omits behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer behavior from the schema alone.

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 four parameters (siteId, offset, limit, filter) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying 'at a site' relates to siteId. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and resource ('firewall zones at a site'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'unifi_get_firewall_zone' (singular) or 'unifi_list_acl_rules', but the verb 'List all' implies a bulk retrieval operation versus a specific fetch.

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. It doesn't mention siblings like 'unifi_get_firewall_zone' for retrieving a single zone or 'unifi_list_acl_rules' for related firewall components, nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints beyond the implied site scope.

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