unifi_supporting

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the pagination format (offset, limit, count, totalCount, data[]) and the detailed filtering grammar. This helps the agent understand how results are returned and how to construct filters.

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 well-structured: a short title, a bullet-like list of operations, then pagination and filter details. Every sentence earns its place, and the organization makes it easy to scan. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 8 operations and no output schema, the description covers the common pagination contract and filtering mechanics. It does not detail per-operation return fields, but for a read-only list utility with consistent pagination, this is adequate. The schema covers parameter applicability.

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 coverage is 100% but the description adds significant meaning to the 'filter' parameter by explaining the expression syntax (property.function(args), combining with and/or/not, supported functions, string quoting, like patterns). This goes beyond the schema's simple reference to 'see tool description'.

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 as 'Supporting resources (countries, DPI, device tags, RADIUS, VPN, WANs)' and enumerates eight concrete list operations with (Read) indicators. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unifi_devices or unifi_sites, which target specific resource types.

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 usage context by listing all operations and explaining pagination and filtering syntax. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the operation names and resource categories make the intended use obvious.

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