list_sites

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

The description explicitly labels the operation as read-only, consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, and adds context about the scope ('accessible to the current user') and the output (site id and name). It does not disclose potential pagination or rate limits, but for a simple read-only listing tool the provided behavioral context is strong.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and logically structured with a read-only note, return-value information, and an alternative-tool pointer. The Args block is redundant with the schema, which prevents a perfect score, but it is not bloated.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, how to target a specific console, and what to use afterward for more detail. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the description's Args section repeats the schema's device description almost verbatim, adding no new semantic information. The optional device parameter is already well documented in the schema, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all UniFi sites accessible to the current user'), and states the return values (each site's id and name). It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by directing users to get_site_health / get_site_settings for per-site detail.

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 tells users to use get_site_health / get_site_settings for per-site detail once a site name is known, which clarifies when this listing tool is appropriate versus its alternatives. It also frames list_sites as the initial discovery step, giving clear context for when to use it.

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