unifi_gen_getdpiapplications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond a docs URL — no pagination behavior, no result size expectations despite a 200-item limit cap, and no note on what 'filter' matches.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words on repetition of the input schema. However, it is under-specified rather than concise, and the appended developer.ui.com versioned URL is noise that consumes space without helping an agent decide or invoke.

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?

With no output schema, three undocumented query parameters, and two near-duplicate sibling list tools, the description should explain the filter/pagination contract and the difference from unifi_net_list_dpi_applications. None of that is present, leaving real ambiguity for an agent with no required parameters to anchor on.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for limit, offset and filter — yet it mentions none of them. The parameter names are largely self-explanatory and bounds are in the schema, but the critical question of filter syntax (name match? prefix? case sensitivity?) is left entirely unresolved.

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 DPI Applications"), which is enough to know the operation is a read-only enumeration of DPI application entries. It does not, however, distinguish this from close siblings such as unifi_net_list_dpi_applications or unifi_gen_getdpiapplicationcategories, forcing the agent to guess which of the three to call.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites such as site or network scoping. The only additional text is a source URL, which tells the agent nothing about when this tool is the right choice over its nearly identical siblings.

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