unifi_list_devices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates a read-only list operation ('List all') and specifies the included data fields, but it does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, or how results are returned. The impact of this gap is limited given the tool's simple read-only nature.

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 a single, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the action ('List all') and immediately lists the relevant device types and attributes. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

For a no-parameter list tool, the description is complete enough: it names the resource type and the main data points returned. While there is no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what will be returned. Minor gaps like pagination or site scope are not critical for this simple operation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema (empty object) fully documents this with 100% coverage. No additional parameter semantics are needed, so the baseline of 4 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb 'List' and explicitly enumerates the resource types and attributes ('access points, switches, gateways, uptime, IP addresses, and adoption status'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unifi_list_clients or unifi_list_wlans.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or fallback options. However, the scope is clear from context, making usage implied rather than explicit.

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