unifi_list_radius_profiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a listing operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit parameters), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool 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 immediately conveys the core functionality. There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward listing tool and gets directly to the point.

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?

For a listing tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what RADIUS profiles are, what information they contain, how results are structured, or behavioral aspects like pagination. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for effective tool use is incomplete.

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, providing clear documentation for all 4 parameters (siteId, offset, limit, filter). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 ('RADIUS profiles at a site'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'unifi_list_networks' or 'unifi_list_wifi', but the specific resource type (RADIUS profiles) provides inherent distinction. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing site access), compare it to similar listing tools (like 'unifi_list_networks'), or indicate when not to use it (e.g., for creating or updating RADIUS profiles). The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and description.

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