unifi_get_sdwan_config_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context that the data is network-topology and admin-gated, and it lists the type of data returned. Still, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention error behavior, or address rate limits or permissions beyond 'admin-gated'.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, the output details are compactly listed, and the access restriction is appended in a short clause. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return categories and the access requirement. It does not describe the exact status values or response format, and it omits an explicit read-only statement, but given the simplicity of the tool, the definition is nearly complete.

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%: the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'SD-WAN config ID (as returned by unifi_list_sdwan_configs)', which already guides the agent on obtaining the value. The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond referencing 'one SD-WAN configuration', so it meets the baseline for full schema coverage without elevating it.

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-resource pair ('Get deployment status for one SD-WAN configuration') and enumerates exactly what the status includes (generation/apply status, per-hub/spoke details, WAN IPs, latency, routes, errors/warnings). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling unifi_get_sdwan_config, which presumably returns the configuration itself rather than its deployment status.

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 implies the tool is for status retrieval, and the schema notes the ID comes from unifi_list_sdwan_configs, suggesting a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like unifi_get_sdwan_config, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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