unifi_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description reinforces with 'Read'. It adds no extra behavioral context such as response format, authentication needs, or consoleId handling beyond what the schema provides. No contradiction with 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?

The description is very concise, using a single line plus a bullet for the operation. It is front-loaded with the resource name. However, the operations list is redundant with the schema's enum, making it slightly less efficient, but still well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with one operation and two parameters, and there is no output schema. The description gives the essential purpose but omits details about what 'Application Info' contains or how to interpret the response. This is adequate for a simple read-only tool, but lacks enrichment.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (consoleId and operation), including enum values. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as 'UniFi Network application info' and the operation as 'Get Application Info', establishing a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like unifi_devices or unifi_sites by targeting general application info, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage when retrieving application info via the 'get' operation, but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance. No mention of consoleId requirements in cloud mode appears only in the schema, not in the description, so usage context is minimal.

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