unifi_list_wifi

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 states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention pagination details (implied by offset/limit), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with multiple parameters.

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, clear 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 understand at a glance.

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 has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like pagination, filtering behavior, or output format, which are crucial for effective use. This is inadequate for a list tool with multiple operational parameters.

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 meaning beyond implying a site context, which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 ('all WiFi broadcasts (SSIDs) at a site'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'unifi_get_wifi' or 'unifi_create_wifi', which would require more context about what distinguishes listing from getting or creating.

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. With siblings like 'unifi_get_wifi' and 'unifi_create_wifi', there's no indication of whether this is for bulk retrieval, filtered queries, or other specific contexts, leaving usage ambiguous.

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