unifi_list_traffic_matching_lists

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying the return fields (id, type, name, items). This provides behavioral context beyond the 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 very concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose and resource, the second gives a specific use case. No unnecessary words.

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 (not shown but indicated), the description provides key return fields and a usage hint. It is sufficiently complete for a list operation with readOnlyHint annotation.

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%, so the description does not need to add much for parameters. It does not elaborate on the parameters beyond what the schema provides, which is adequate. Baseline score 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'traffic matching lists at a site', with a concise definition of what they are (named collections of ports or IPs reused in firewall/ACL rules). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unifi_get_traffic_matching_list which retrieves a single list.

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 includes an explicit use case: 'finding the matching-list ID to reference from a firewall policy'. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the context is clear enough, and the sibling unifi_get_traffic_matching_list provides an alternative for single-list retrieval.

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