unifi_list_sites

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 useful context beyond those annotations: the tool is scoped to sites the API key can access, and its returned id is required by other tools. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but this is a simple read-only listing.

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 tightly packed sentences: one states the action and return value, the other states workflow placement. No filler, and the most important fact—that siteId is needed elsewhere—is front and center.

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?

With an output schema present and fully described optional parameters, the description is largely complete for a simple read-only list tool. It could have briefly noted pagination/default-limit behavior, but the schema already provides limit/offset defaults.

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?

All three parameters already have schema descriptions with defaults and an example filter expression, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List all sites') and adds a scope qualifier ('the API key has access to'), immediately distinguishing this tool from the many get/list siblings. It also states what is returned and why the returned id matters.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use for: first call in any workflow — almost every other tool needs a siteId,' which gives clear workflow context and sequencing. It does not name explicit when-not conditions or alternatives, but as a bootstrap list tool that exclusion is less critical.

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