unifi_list_pending_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the scope ('global, not site-specific') but lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are formatted, or if there are rate limits. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 and key constraint ('global, not site-specific'). Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with 3 optional parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and scope but omits behavioral details like response format or error handling, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'offset', 'limit', and 'filter' parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where 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 verb ('List') and resource ('devices pending adoption'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'unifi_list_devices' by specifying the 'pending adoption' scope, though it doesn't explicitly compare them.

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 implies usage context by noting 'global, not site-specific', which suggests this tool should be used for cross-site pending devices rather than per-site queries. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'unifi_list_devices' or 'unifi_get_device', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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