unifi_list_hosts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It openly positions the operation as a list/read action and lists the included data: hardware ID, IP address, ownership/block status, and timestamps. It does not mention pagination details or data freshness, but the existing schema already covers pagination 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 two sentences with no filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence concisely lists the output categories. Every sentence 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?

For a simple list operation with two optional parameters and no required inputs, the description gives enough information for an agent to invoke it correctly. It clarifies scope and return content, though it could improve by explicitly addressing pagination behavior or contrasting with sibling list tools.

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 fully documents pageSize and nextToken. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, but none is needed because the parameter descriptions are self-sufficient.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a precise resource ('every host'), and clarifies what counts as a host ('UniFi console or network-server application'), which sets it apart from sibling tools like unifi_list_devices or unifi_list_sites. It also enumerates the returned fields, leaving no doubt about the tool's function.

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 clearly implies this is for listing all hosts under the account, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over alternatives such as unifi_get_host or unifi_list_devices. There is no 'use this when...' or 'not for...' guidance, so an agent must infer the scope from the wording.

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