unifi_list_devices

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations by disclosing the exact returned fields, the meaning of state values, and a key behavioral nuance: features/interfaces are string arrays here while unifi_get_device expands them into objects. It also clarifies the scope to 'adopted devices'.

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 information-dense but well organized: scope, returned fields, an important caveat, and usage guidance are all present in a compact, readable form. No filler or redundant restatement of the name exists.

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 operation with read-only annotations, a complete input schema, an output schema, and a large sibling family, the description provides everything needed: return shape, scope, and explicit routing to the complementary tools. The pagination defaults are already covered by the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and every parameter (siteId, limit, offset, filter) already has a description naming its purpose and defaults. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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') with a clear resource ('all adopted devices at a site') and names device types (gateways, switches, APs). It also distinguishes itself from unifi_get_device and unifi_list_pending_devices by clarifying scope and representation.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use for: device inventory' and pairing with unifi_get_device for full config and unifi_get_device_statistics for live metrics. This clearly tells an agent when to select this tool and which siblings to use for deeper detail.

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