unifi_get_device

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description is not required to repeat those. It adds value by revealing that only 'allow-listed' telemetry is returned, and that the operation is scoped to a site. It does not go into error handling or data completeness, but that is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 entire description is one concise sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. It opens with the action verb and places the key qualifier ('one exact device ID') immediately after the object.

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 a simple single-device read operation, and the output schema plus annotations cover return values and safety. The description provides the essential selection criteria and scope. It could improve by clarifying 'allow-listed' or referencing a prior list step, but these are not blockers.

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 0%, so the description must carry meaning for parameters. It adds that device_id must be an exact ID (not a name or partial match) and that site refers to the selected site. It does not explain the optionality/null behavior of site, but the schema's pattern fields already provide technical constraints.

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 ('Get') and identifies the resource ('telemetry for one exact device ID'), making the action unmistakable. The singular 'one exact device ID' clearly separates it from sibling listing tools like unifi_list_devices. The 'allow-listed' qualifier is slightly jargon-heavy but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 states the precise condition for use: the caller must have an exact device ID. This implies it is the wrong choice for listing or bulk operations, though it does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases. The mention of 'selected site' also signals that site scope is relevant, but it stops short of explicit routing.

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