List WANs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description's one contribution is that results are site-scoped rather than global, which is genuinely useful context; it says nothing about pagination defaults, result ordering, or what a WAN record contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence fragment with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined compression.

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 read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the minimal contract is met, but the description omits the pagination model and the filter language that the undocumented schema leaves entirely unexplained. An agent can call it blindly but cannot call it precisely.

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?

All three parameters (limit, filter, offset) have zero schema description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them. The UniFi filter string syntax and the default/maximum page size behavior are non-obvious, and neither the schema nor the description explains them, so the agent is left to guess.

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 names a specific resource (WAN interfaces) and a scope (configured on the current site), which tells an agent exactly what the call enumerates. It does not contrast itself with the near-duplicate sibling unifi_gen_getwansoverviewpage or with unifi_net_list_networks, so the listing verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as the WAN overview page sibling or the raw request escape hatch. The agent must infer that this is for reading WAN configs and not for editing them, which is only recoverable from the tool name.

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