UniFi: List WLANs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is reinforced and enriched by the explanation that 'a bad SSID change takes every wireless client offline at once,' which gives the agent a concrete consequence justifying the safety profile. It also discloses the shape of the result (fields returned), which the annotations and output schema do not provide.

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, zero waste: the first front-loads the action and return fields, the second justifies the safety posture. Every clause earns its place, and the read-only rationale is placed after the purpose rather than obscuring it.

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 read-only list tool, the package is complete: annotations cover the safety profile, parameter docs cover invocation details, and the description enumerates the return fields in the absence of an output schema. Only a minor gap exists around the exact response shape/pagination behavior, which the limit parameter largely covers.

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 100% and each parameter is richly documented (site name resolution, limit bounds with server rejection, full filter syntax with examples). The main description adds no parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting and there is no gap to compensate for.

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 a specific verb and resource — 'List the WiFi broadcasts (SSIDs) on a site' — and enumerates the distinguishing return fields (bridged network, security mode, band, enabled state). This clearly separates it from sibling list tools like unifi_list_networks and unifi_list_clients without needing to open any schema.

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 domain of use is implied ('this is the tool for SSIDs'), and the phrase 'same reason as networks' obliquely connects it to a sibling tool's rationale. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over unifi_list_networks or other list tools, and offers no when-not-to-use guidance.

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