unifi_list_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds genuine value by flagging PII, admin-gated access, and the output fields (MAC, IP, model, firmware status, adoption/uptime), plus the 'grouped by host' behavior. It does not mention rate limits, response envelope, or default filtering, but for a list operation the key behavior and data-sensitivity are disclosed.

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?

Two sentences: the first states action and scope, the second summarizes output fields and adds a concise PII warning. No filler or redundancy; every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the key returned device attributes and grouping behavior. It also conveys access-sensitivity, which matters for an admin-gated PII-bearing tool. Minor gaps like exact response pagination envelope are absent, but the schema covers pagination parameters and the description covers the essential context.

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 already documents all four parameters (time, hostIds, pageSize, nextToken). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond schema, which is consistent with the baseline 3 for a fully-covered schema.

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 begins with a specific verb-resource pair ('List UniFi devices') and adds a precise scope ('managed by hosts this API key's account owns or super-admins') plus grouping behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like unifi_list_sites and unifi_list_hosts, which target different resources.

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 useful context about ownership scope and admin gating, which implicitly tells an agent this is the device-listing tool for host-owned UniFi devices. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when NOT to use it (e.g., versus unifi_get_host for a single device), leaving routing partially to inference.

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