list_ulp_users

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only and provides the HTTP method, which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication needs, error behavior, pagination, or what the response contains—though an output schema exists and helps mitigate some of this.

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 compact and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the endpoint, the read-only nature, the sibling distinction, and the host format. No filler or redundant content.

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 list operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how it differs from the main sibling, and exactly what values `host` accepts. An agent has enough to call this tool correctly without further research.

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?

Despite schema description coverage being 0%, the description thoroughly explains the required `host` parameter: it can be a console name, ID, or composite ID in MAC:numericId format. This adds essential meaning beyond the bare 'string' type in the schema, enabling correct invocation.

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 ULP (UniFi account) users' and includes the endpoint. It also distinguishes itself from `list_protect_users` by clarifying these are UI-account identities, so an agent can differentiate sibling tools immediately.

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 explicitly calls out that this is distinct from `list_protect_users` and clarifies the domain ('UI-account identities'), giving clear context for when this tool is the right choice. It does not phrase it as an explicit conditional ('use this when...'), but the contrast with the sibling provides strong usage guidance.

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