list_mobility_workspaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well: it discloses auth scoping ('visible to the authenticated API key'), return shape ('workspace_id, workspace_name, is_owner, status'), that results are 'Returned verbatim,' and that the API is 'Not query-paginated.' This goes beyond what the name implies, though it stops short of describing error/empty-result behavior.

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 sentence, then adds only high-value details: return fields, verbatim behavior, non-pagination, the mobility-vs-site model distinction, and the parameter explanation. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no 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 simple, single-parameter list tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete: it covers scope, return contents, pagination behavior, and the only parameter. It does not mention read-only guarantees or error conditions, but the output schema covers return structure and the 'list' verb makes the operation's nature clear.

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 fully compensate, and it does. key_label is explained completely: what it is ('configured API-key label'), why it exists ('multi-key deployments,' 'route the request on a specific key'), and its default behavior ('Omit to use the default key'). Nothing about the parameter is left ambiguous.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List UniFi Mobility workspaces visible to the authenticated API key.' It also distinguishes the tool from site-oriented siblings by stating that mobility identity is workspace-based and 'independent of the console host/site model,' so an agent can tell it apart from list_sites, list_local_sites, and list_all_sites_aggregated.

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 provides clear context that this tool operates on the mobility workspace concept, not the console host/site model, which effectively tells an agent when this tool applies versus the site-listing siblings. It does not name a specific alternative tool for console sites, so exclusion is contextual rather than explicit.

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