list_sites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that site information is returned but does not disclose read-only nature, permission requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. For a list operation, some transparency is implied but not explicit.

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 and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, a brief paragraph on return content, and a bulleted Args section. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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's simplicity (list with pagination) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and parameters. It lacks mention of error handling, empty results, or rate limits, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a read-only 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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description includes an 'Args' section that explains both parameters: page_size (default 25) and next_token (pagination token). This adds practical context beyond the schema titles and defaults, aiding agent usage.

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 it 'List all UniFi Network sites across all hosts in your account,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the scope (across all hosts) and the domain (UniFi Network sites), making it 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 explains the broad scope (all hosts and sites) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_hosts or other network listing tools. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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