unifi_get_wifi

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, or the response format. No information on error handling, rate limits, or side effects is included, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with network configurations.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that retrieves network configurations. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., SSID, security settings), potential errors, or dependencies. For a read operation in a system with many sibling tools, more context is needed to ensure proper use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('siteId' and 'wifiBroadcastId') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these IDs are needed to fetch a specific network, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('specific WiFi network by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'unifi_list_wifi' by specifying retrieval of a single network rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'get' entails (e.g., fetching configuration details).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for retrieving a specific WiFi network, it doesn't contrast with 'unifi_list_wifi' for bulk retrieval or 'unifi_get_network' for other network types. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection mentioned.

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