unifi_list_wans

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it confirms the exact returned fields (id, name) and states that no live link status or throughput rates are exposed, which is valuable for setting agent expectations. It also mentions version verification, adding credibility.

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 brief, front-loaded with purpose, then return details, then use cases. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool has an output schema (context signal), the description need not detail return structure. It covers the purpose, return fields, limitations, and use cases. For a simple list operation with three well-documented parameters, nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already documents limit, offset, and siteId with defaults and constraints. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('WAN interface definitions') with scope ('at a site'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it returns only id and name, and explicitly excludes live status/throughput, making it unambiguous which tool to pick.

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 provides explicit use cases ('WAN inventory, multi-WAN topology'), giving clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the specificity of the scope makes selection straightforward among the many list tools.

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