unifi_get_rogue_aps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('list') and lists the returned fields, which is transparent for a simple listing tool. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like data freshness or authentication requirements.

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 one sentence and a list of return fields, front-loading the purpose. It has no unnecessary words, though it could separate the purpose from output details for better structure.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the main function and return fields. However, it omits context about the site_id parameter and does not clarify differences between rogue and neighboring APs, leaving minor gaps.

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% as there is no description for the single parameter 'site_id'. The tool description does not mention or explain this parameter, leaving the agent unaware of its role despite the default value.

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 states the specific verb 'List', the resource 'rogue / neighboring access points', and the scope 'detected by your APs', clearly distinguishing it from sibling list tools such as unifi_list_clients or unifi_list_devices.

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 usage for viewing detected rogue APs but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, such as when you need to see only clients or devices. No when-not-to-use or context cues are provided.

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