unifi_list_lags

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the return shape, including the type enum values and metadata.origin, which helps the agent understand what the operation exposes beyond a simple list.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the operation and context, the second summarizes the return fields. The key information is front-loaded and 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 simple, read-only list operation with full schema coverage, a safe annotation profile, and an output schema present, the description is complete. It identifies the required scope, the resource, and the return shape without needing to repeat pagination or auth details that are already structured elsewhere.

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?

The input schema fully describes all four parameters with meaningful descriptions, including defaults and max for limit and offset, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'at a site' aligns with the required siteId but adds no new parameter-level semantic detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List LAGs (Link Aggregation Groups — bonded switch ports) at a site.' The description defines the domain term and scope, and the return fields clarify what is being listed. The verb 'List' plus the LAG resource clearly differentiates it from sibling get/list tools.

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 makes the tool's purpose clear and implies it is for listing LAGs at a site, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like unifi_get_lag or unifi_list_mc_lag_domains. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving usage inference to the agent.

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