Get Example

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' strongly implies a safe, read-only operation, and the output schema documents the return shape, so behavior is not opaque. However, the description does not explicitly confirm side-effect-free behavior or any other runtime characteristics in the absence of annotations.

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?

Single sentence, no filler, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every token in the available description is meaningful. There is no unnecessary framing or repeated information.

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 read-only example lookup with a fully documented input schema and an output schema present, the description plus structured fields give an agent enough to call the tool correctly. It could only be improved by adding sibling selection guidance, but that gap is already penalized under usage guidelines.

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 100%, so the schema itself documents all three parameters well, including defaults, formats, and allowed language values. The description adds nothing beyond that, which matches the baseline expectation for full schema coverage.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a code example for a specific UniFi API endpoint.' It is clearly a retrieval tool, and 'code example' distinguishes it from response-sample or endpoint metadata tools. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the noun 'code example' narrows the purpose well.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings such as get_endpoint, get_response_sample, and find_field, an agent is given no explicit help selecting this tool over alternatives. This is a real gap.

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