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 agent knows it is safe. The description adds that it is a global endpoint, not site-scoped, and mentions the return contains basic device info but the exact schema is not rendered, providing useful behavioral context beyond 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?

Two sentences, no redundancy. The purpose and scope are front-loaded, making it immediately informative. Every sentence adds value.

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 presence of an output schema and adequate annotations, the description sufficiently covers the global scope, use case, and return type. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (limit, filter, offset), so the schema already documents them well. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters, maintaining the baseline expected score of 3.

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 'List devices pending adoption across all sites' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by noting it is global and not site-scoped, clearly indicating its unique purpose.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use for: discovering new devices on the network before calling unifi_adopt_device,' providing a clear context of use and implying an alternative action. However, it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for site-scoped queries) beyond the global scope note.

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