list_lags

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does well by disclosing the auto-drain behavior, the effect of offset/limit, and the explicit incomplete-flag behavior on capped drains. It does not mention auth or read-only semantics, but 'List' plus the drain disclosure covers the main behavioral risks.

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 purpose, then uses compact labeled sentences for parameters and pagination. Every sentence adds operational value without repetition of schema defaults.

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 list operation with an output schema, the description covers the required host/site inputs, optional filter, and pagination semantics. It is slightly incomplete only in not clarifying how this relates to the sibling get_lag or MC-LAG domain tools, but that does not prevent a correct call.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it does: host accepts names/IDs/composite MAC:numericId, site accepts name or ID, filter is a UniFi Integration API expression, and offset/limit control manual paging. It stops short of giving filter syntax or examples.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair: 'List Link Aggregation Groups (LAGs) on a site.' It is distinguishable from the sibling get_lag (singular retrieval) by the plural 'list' scope, though it does not explicitly call out the distinction from list_mc_lag_domains.

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 usage: call it to enumerate LAGs scoped to a host/site. It gives pagination instructions (offset/limit for a manual page) but does not state when to prefer get_lag or list_mc_lag_domains, so alternative routing is left to inference.

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