unifi_list_wifi

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 scoping information ('at a site') and return-field semantics, but it does not disclose behavioral details like pagination behavior, filter semantics, or any rate-limit expectations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and contains useful routing guidance. The return-field enumeration is somewhat lengthy and likely overlaps with the output schema, but it adds semantic value by explaining fields like broadcastingDeviceFilter and type enum values, so the length is justified.

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 rich context from annotations, a 100%-covered input schema, an output schema, and the sibling alternative described, the definition is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No critical usage information seems 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 input schema already documents all parameters including limit, filter, offset, and siteId. The description does not add parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema provides, which fits the baseline 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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'List all WiFi broadcasts (SSIDs) at a site.' It also provides the intended use case ('SSID inventory') and explicitly contrasts itself with unifi_get_device for per-AP radio state, helping distinguish it from a key sibling tool.

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 states when to use the tool ('Use for: SSID inventory') and when not to, directing the agent to unifi_get_device for per-AP radio state. This provides clear, actionable routing guidance beyond what the tool name alone implies.

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