Get Docs Info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Show' communicates a read-only, non-mutating operation, and listing what information is returned gives the agent a good sense of expected behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that it performs no side effects, requires no authentication, or has no significant cost; for such a simple metadata tool this is a minor gap rather than a serious one.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and then lists the specific data elements. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only metadata tool with an output schema available, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool reports, and the presence of an output schema covers return-value details. No missing information would prevent correct invocation or interpretation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter details because none exist, and the input schema confirms an empty object. Nothing more is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and a clear resource ('which UniFi API docs are loaded'), then enumerates the exact content: API version, scrape date, endpoint and guide counts per app. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_endpoints or get_guide, which operate on individual docs rather than reporting loaded-doc metadata.

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 clearly implies the use case: when an agent needs an overview of which documentation is loaded and its versioning/coverage stats, rather than querying individual endpoints or guides. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the zero-parameter metadata nature of the tool makes the appropriate context sufficiently clear.

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