unifi_list_clients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes the tool as read-only by listing clients and returning data, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or mention side effects. It does cover response fields and pagination 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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently covers the tool's purpose, returns, filters, and pagination. No redundant or unnecessary information is present.

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 no output schema, the description lists key return fields and all filter/pagination options. It omits error handling, authentication requirements, and the meaning of the default site_id. However, for a list tool, it provides sufficient contextual guidance.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the purpose of parameters: type filters (WIRELESS/WIRED), uplink_device_id, and pagination offset/limit. It adds meaning beyond the schema defaults, such as the enum values for type and the default limit of 25.

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 the tool lists connected clients for a site, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like unifi_get_client (single client) and unifi_list_devices (devices vs clients). The return fields are listed, providing a clear purpose.

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 context on filters and pagination but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as unifi_get_client for a single client or unifi_list_known_clients for historical data. The agent would benefit from explicit exclusions.

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