unifi_list_known_clients

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

No annotations provided, so description must bear full burden. Description indicates a read-only list operation and lists returned fields. However, it does not disclose potential behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or data size limits. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 that are front-loaded with purpose and return fields. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return fields adequately but lacks parameter explanation and omits details like pagination. It is mostly complete for a simple read tool but has a clear gap.

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 description coverage, the description must explain parameters but does not mention site_id at all. The agent receives no guidance on what the 'default' value means or how to specify other sites, leaving a critical gap.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'List', resource 'known client records', and scope 'persistent user database'. It also specifies returned fields (hostname, MAC, IP, etc.) and directly distinguishes from sibling unifi_get_client_stats.

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?

Description explicitly differentiates from unifi_get_client_stats, implicitly guiding when to use this tool (for persistent data) versus the sibling (for currently connected clients). However, it lacks explicit conditions like 'use this for historical client data' or 'do not use for real-time status'.

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