unifi_list_dpi_applications

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior context by noting the 'global' scope and the exact return fields ('id (numeric), name'), which helps the agent understand output shape and data source beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action and resource, provides examples, states the return value, and gives sibling differentiation in a compact, scannable format.

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 simple read-only list tool, the description covers the key contextual needs: global scope, granularity relative to a sibling, and return fields. The output schema exists and the input schema is complete, so nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (limit, filter, offset). The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance, but with complete schema coverage 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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('individual DPI applications (global)'), gives concrete examples ('Netflix', 'Zoom', 'Steam'), and explicitly differentiates from a sibling tool ('More granular than unifi_list_dpi_categories'). This makes the tool's scope unmistakable.

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 names the alternative unifi_list_dpi_categories and positions this tool as more granular, which gives the agent a clear reason to select it over that sibling. However, it does not state an explicit when-not-to-use condition or mention other potential alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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