List pending devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the global (non-site-scoped) endpoint behavior and by flagging that the exact per-row schema is undocumented in the 11.0.83 docs — an honest uncertainty disclosure.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then returns, then usage in a tight structure with no filler sentences. The doc-version parenthetical is slightly noisy but earns its place as a transparency caveat rather than padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return values is optional, yet the description still summarizes the key fields and notes the schema-uncertainty. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only explicit pagination/filter behavior notes are absent.

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% (limit, filter, offset all documented with examples and defaults), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the schema does the work.

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 (List) and resource (devices pending adoption), and adds the crucial scope qualifier 'across all sites (global endpoint, not site-scoped)'. This distinguishes it from siblings like unifi_list_devices and site-scoped list tools without needing to open the schema.

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?

Provides an explicit workflow trigger: 'Use for: discovering new devices on the network before calling unifi_adopt_device', naming the follow-up tool. It lacks an explicit when-not/exclusion clause, but the adoption-discovery context is clear enough for correct selection.

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