list_innerspace_access_points

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data is returned verbatim including mac/serial, which is a meaningful privacy-related behavior, and explains host formats. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or confirm read-only behavior beyond the verb 'List'.

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 well-organized: purpose first, then return-field details, then parameter semantics. The field enumeration is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but it includes the unique 'returned verbatim' note and remains readable without bloat.

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?

With an output schema present, return value details are sufficiently covered. Missing elements are explicit usage differentiation among InnerSpace listing tools and any caveats about pagination/limits. For a straightforward list operation, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains both parameters: 'host' with accepted formats (console name, ID, or MAC:numericId composite) and 'site_id' as an optional UniFi site filter with matching semantics. This significantly exceeds the bare schema types.

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 ('placed access points from a console's InnerSpace floor plans'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_innerspace_devices or list_innerspace_switches. The phrase 'placed access points' adds precise scope.

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 implies when to use it (wanting floor-plan access points for a console) and explains parameters, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as list_innerspace_devices or list_innerspace_inventory. No exclusions or 'use X instead' guidance is provided.

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