list_switch_stacks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals a significant non-obvious behavior: the tool automatically drains all pages by default, and that a capped drain is explicitly flagged as incomplete rather than silently truncated. This gives the agent important expectations about pagination and result completeness. It also clarifies accepted host formats and the optional filter, adding value beyond what the schema conveys.

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-structured and efficient: a single-purpose first sentence, followed by parameter clarifications, then behavioral paging details, and finally filter explanation. Every sentence contributes useful information; there is no fluff. The format is compact and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, return values are documented separately. The description covers all key aspects needed to invoke the tool correctly: scope, required parameters, optional filter, and paging semantics. It also clarifies edge-case behavior (incomplete drain flag). For a list operation, this is complete and sufficient context.

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 compensate. It explains the required host and site parameters (including accepted formats for host), and explains the meaning of offset/limit through the paging behavior. The filter is described as an optional UniFi Integration API filter expression, which gives the agent enough to understand its purpose. It does not detail constraints for limit/offset (e.g., maximum values), but the paging explanation covers their functional role.

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 begins with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'List switch stacks on a site.' It clearly identifies the scope (site) and distinguishes itself from sibling get_switch_stack by the plural 'stacks'. The parameter definitions further clarify what the tool operates on, so an agent can easily understand its purpose.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to list switch stacks on a specific site, with host and site parameters. It explains paging behavior ('Drains all pages by default; pass offset/limit for a single manual page') and the filter parameter, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_switch_stack, though the name and description make the distinction obvious.

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