Get Guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get a ... guide page,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not address auth requirements, error behavior, rate limits, or what happens with invalid topics or slugs.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical examples are compact and informative, and the description is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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 low-complexity tool with zero required parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It lacks explicit usage guidance versus sibling tools, but the resource type and examples cover the essential calling intent.

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?

Both parameters are already well-documented in the schema (app filter values, topic slug/search term, omit behavior), so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful examples of guide topics, which clarifies what kind of values 'topic' may take and pushes it slightly beyond the schema.

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?

States the exact resource ('UniFi API guide page') with a specific verb ('Get') and concrete examples (filtering syntax, error handling, getting started). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that target endpoints, examples, or field schemas.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative tool guidance is given. The topic examples imply it is for conceptual/API documentation rather than endpoint-specific details, but there is no exclusion or comparison to get_docs_info or list_endpoints, so the agent must infer when to choose this tool.

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