unifi_spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the return value content (request-body, path/query parameters, response schema). It does not disclose error behavior or limitations, but for a read-only lookup this is acceptable.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then return value, then usage guidance. Every sentence is purposeful with no filler.

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 has one parameter and no output schema. The description explains what it returns and when to call it. It could mention error handling or explicitly scope coverage across all unifi_* tools, but the core information is present.

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% and the description reinforces parameter format with a concrete example ('operation: "unifi_networks.create"'). This adds value beyond the schema, clarifying the exact dot-separated format.

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 tool reads the committed vendor API contract and returns exact schemas for any operation of sibling unifi_* tools. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a meta-lookup, with a concrete example of the operation format.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this tool before create/update/action operations, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but as a unique meta-tool the guidance is sufficient.

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