unifi_list_sites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful context: results are scoped to the API key's UI.com account and include the caller's permission level, which signals authorization-dependent output. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention pagination behavior or any other edge cases.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and scope, then lists the returned content fields. Every clause adds information; there is no filler or redundant wording.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description helpfully outlines what each returned entry contains (IDs, metadata, stats, permission level). It also clarifies the source (hosts running the UniFi Network application) and the account-scoping. The only missing context is pagination behavior and edge cases, which are minor for a straightforward list operation.

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 covers 100% of the parameters (pageSize and nextToken), each with its own description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but the schema already carries that weight, so no deduction is warranted.

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 and resource: 'List every UniFi site', further scoped by 'visible to this API key's UI.com account'. It enumerates exactly what each entry includes (IDs, metadata, stats, permission level), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list hosts, devices, or SDWAN configs.

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 implies usage: if you need UniFi sites visible to the account, or site IDs/metadata/stats, this is the tool. However, it never explicitly names alternatives like unifi_list_hosts or unifi_list_devices, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The guidance is inferred from the resource name rather than stated.

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