unifi_list_client_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies the data is inventory rather than session history, warns that errors never mean zero activity, and notes retention depends on the controller. It doesn't describe pagination or exact response shape, but the output schema exists and the added context is meaningful.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, the sibling distinction is immediate, and the caveats are compact. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema, annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, scope, prerequisites, error interpretation, and retention. The only minor gap is not describing pagination or result limits, but that is not critical given the output schema and the tool's read-only nature.

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 already documents both parameters (withinHours and siteReference) with descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description adds context about retention ('does not extend controller retention') and clarifies siteReference is the internalReference, not the Integration API UUID, which is useful. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds only marginal semantic value.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('historical/offline client inventory'), and the API used ('controller v2 API'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool unifi_list_client_sessions, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 says when to use this tool ('inventory, not session history') and names the alternative (unifi_list_client_sessions) for past connections. It also gives a prerequisite ('Requires controller history API-key support') and a caveat about interpreting errors ('errors never mean zero activity').

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