list_hosts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns host details (type, IP, firmware, connectivity) but does not explicitly mention it is a read-only operation, rate limits, or authentication. The behavior is implied but not fully transparent.

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 concise, with three sentences plus parameter explanations. No extraneous information, well-organized, and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 that an output schema exists (though not shown), the description appropriately lists the types of information returned. Parameter semantics are fully covered. The tool is simple, and the description is complete for its purpose.

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 description includes a docstring explaining both parameters: 'page_size: Number of hosts per page (default 25).' and 'next_token: Pagination token from a previous response to get the next page.' This adds significant value beyond the input schema, which only lists types and defaults.

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 all UniFi hosts (consoles/gateways) associated with your account.' This uses a specific verb (list) and resource (hosts), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_host (single host) and others on different domains.

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 mentions 'Use this to get an overview of all your UniFi controllers and gateways,' implying the intended use case. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear.

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