unifi_clients

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description discloses that execute_action requires confirm:true and 'changes or removes live configuration', while list/get are reads. It also explains pagination behavior and the detailed filter expression grammar, adding substantial behavioral context beyond the annotation flags.

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 structured with bullet-style operation breakdown, pagination shape, and filtering syntax. Every sentence serves a purpose, front-loads the key operation distinctions, and avoids redundancy. The length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 absence of an output schema, the description covers the list return shape, filtering rules, pagination limits, and referential guidance for request-body schemas. It addresses the major usage scenarios for all three operations and integrates well with the schema descriptions, making the tool self-sufficient for invocation.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, but the description adds essential semantics: the filter parameter's non-trivial syntax (functions, combinators, quoting, escape rules) and the pagination response shape. This goes beyond the baseline schema coverage, though the schema already explains which operations use which parameters.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'Connected clients (list, details, guest authorization)' and enumerates three distinct operations (list, get, execute_action) with explicit read/admin semantics. This specific verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other UniFi entities.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (for listing client details, guest auth, etc.) and gives a direct pointer to unifi_spec for request-body shapes. However, it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternative tools for similar client-related tasks, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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