unifi_list_clients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: site defaults to UNIFI_SITE, and offset/limit bound tool output rather than the controller fetch—this prevents a common misconception and meaningfully clarifies runtime behavior.

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 short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the critical site default and the non-obvious pagination caveat. 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?

With an output schema present and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is largely complete for a simple list tool. It explains the key non-obvious behaviors, though it could have explicitly addressed when to choose this over 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by clarifying that site defaults to UNIFI_SITE and that offset/limit affect only the returned page, not the underlying fetch. This adds real semantic value beyond the bare schema, though individual parameter meanings are not fully spelled out.

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 states 'List currently connected clients' with a specific verb and resource, and the 'currently connected' qualifier distinguishes it from historical or device lists. Siblings cover networks, sites, and devices, so the resource scope is unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool—when the agent needs currently connected clients—but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. The site default hint adds context but no direct comparison with sibling list tools.

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