unifi_list_pending_devices

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 context beyond annotations: it specifies the global scope, notes that it returns basic device info per pending device, and transparently caveats that the exact per-row schema is not rendered in the 10.6.106 docs. This is useful behavioral context without contradicting annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose and global scope appear first, followed by return-value details and a specific use case. Every sentence earns its place, including the documentation caveat about the schema.

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?

Given the annotations, output schema, and 100% schema parameter coverage, the description is largely complete. It covers scope, use case, and return-value shape. The only minor gap is that filter expression syntax is not explained, but this is partially mitigated by the schema's own description.

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%, with limit, filter, and offset all described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List devices pending adoption across all sites'. It also differentiates from siblings by stating it is a global endpoint, not site-scoped, which clearly separates it from unifi_list_devices and unifi_get_device.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use for: discovering new devices on the network before calling unifi_adopt_device'. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or alternative routing, but the given use case is clear and actionable.

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