unifi_get_network_details

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

With no annotations, the description should carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only indicates a read operation ('Get'), but does not mention side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or what 'detailed information' includes. This is insufficient for full transparency.

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 sentence with no fluff, making it concise. However, it lacks structure like headings or bullet points, which could improve readability for agents. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a simple 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?

Given the low complexity of one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it does not clarify the difference between this tool and 'unifi_get_network_stats', lacking contextual completeness for an agent to choose correctly among sibling tools.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'network_id' described as 'Network ID'. The description does not add any additional meaning or context to this parameter, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but adds no extra value.

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 clearly states the action ('get') and the resource ('detailed information about a specific network'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'unifi_list_networks' which lists networks, and 'unifi_get_network_stats' which provides stats, by focusing on detailed info for a single network. However, 'detailed information' is somewhat vague and could be more specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives like 'unifi_get_network_stats' or when a specific network_id is needed. It lacks any contextual usage advice, making it harder for an agent to decide between similar tools.

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