unifi_gen_listsites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about scope (all sites vs. a site group), pagination behavior, or the cost of includeStatistics, which is the main behavioral risk here.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the second clause is API provenance that does not help an agent decide or invoke. Not wasteful in length, but low information density.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description should say what a site record contains and how pagination terminates. Instead it provides only provenance, leaving the agent to infer the response shape and default page size.

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%, with pageSize, nextToken and includeStatistics all documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but nothing is required of it given full coverage.

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?

"List Sites" restates the tool name and title rather than describing it, and the only added content is provenance (developer.ui.com/site-manager/v1.0.0). It gives no basis for choosing it over the many siblings that also list sites (unifi_net_list_sites, unifi_sm_list_sites) or that list other resources.

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 exclusions, and no mention of alternatives despite several overlapping siblings. An agent must infer applicability entirely from the name.

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