list_devices

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description reinforces it with 'Read-only operation' and adds useful behavioral context about the per-device summary content. It does not mention pagination or limits, but for a straightforward list operation the stated behavior is sufficient and goes beyond the annotation.

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 description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by read-only status, use case, sibling distinction, and parameters. The Args section is slightly redundant with the schema, but overall every section contributes meaningfully.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by listing the return fields (name, MAC, model, type, IP, online state, uptime, firmware version) and clarifying site/console scope. It also names sibling alternatives and typical use cases, making it self-sufficient for an agent.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description's Args section largely repeats the schema text without adding new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all UniFi network devices (APs, switches, routers) on a site'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from list_unifi_devices and get_global_inventory. It also enumerates the return fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this to discover the MAC values needed by get_device_details, restart_device, and the other device tools') and explicitly contrasts it with sibling tools list_unifi_devices and get_global_inventory. This gives an agent clear decision criteria.

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