unifi_list_vouchers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one behavioral detail by specifying 'active' (implying a filter), but it does not mention return format, pagination, or side effects. For a simple list operation this is adequate, but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words: 'List active guest hotspot vouchers.' It is perfectly concise and efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the object type and the 'active' filter. However, it does not clarify what fields are returned or the output format, which would be useful in the absence of an output schema.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented fields.

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 'List active guest hotspot vouchers' clearly states the action (list), the resource (guest hotspot vouchers), and a scope filter (active). It distinguishes from related siblings like unifi_create_voucher and unifi_revoke_voucher by specifying the list operation.

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 usage is implied by the description: use when you need to view active vouchers. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over other list tools or any exclusion criteria, so it meets only the 'implied usage' level.

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