unifi_list_sites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It implies a read operation (listing), but does not explicitly state it is safe or non-destructive. It also does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or any side effects. The disclosure of return fields adds some transparency.

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 sentences, no filler. Front-loaded with purpose and additional detail. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter list operation, the description is sufficient. It tells what it does and what it returns. However, it could mention if there are any prerequisites (e.g., controller must be connected) to be fully complete.

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 input schema has no parameters and 100% coverage, so the schema itself is minimal. The description adds value by specifying what the tool returns (UUIDs, names, internal references), which aids in understanding output without an output schema.

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 lists all UniFi sites and specifies the return fields (UUIDs, names, internal references). The verb 'list' and resource 'sites' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools that perform actions on specific sites.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large number of sibling tools, mentioning prerequisites or context (e.g., 'Use this to get available sites before performing site-specific operations') would be helpful.

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