unifi_list_sites

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 states the tool lists sites but doesn't describe return format (e.g., array of objects with fields), pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit but not explained), error conditions, or authentication requirements. The description adds no meaningful context beyond the basic purpose.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information ('List all sites'), 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?

For a list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned (site fields, structure), how pagination works despite offset/limit parameters, or any API-specific behaviors. The agent lacks critical information to use this tool effectively.

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 three parameters (offset, limit, filter) with their types, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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') and resource ('sites available to the API key'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'unifi_list_networks' or 'unifi_list_wifi' by specifying 'sites' as the resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list operations beyond the resource 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., API key scope), when this tool is appropriate versus other list tools, or any contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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