unifi_get_health

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

The description adds a meaningful behavioral nuance beyond the annotations: 'missing metrics are unknown, not healthy.' This prevents an agent from falsely treating absent data as a positive health signal, which is valuable interpretive context that the readOnly/idempotent annotations do not convey.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words: it names the operation first and then delivers the key caveat. It is succinct without losing substance.

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 description conveys the tool's purpose and the most important interpretive caveat, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, it leaves parameter semantics entirely undocumented, especially 'site' and pagination behavior, so the definition is not fully complete on its own.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden of explaining the three parameters (site, limit, offset), but it does not mention any of them. The parameter names and constraints offer some clue, yet the description adds no meaning beyond what is already visible in the schema.

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 states a clear action ('Read') and a specific resource ('subsystem health'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling list/get/resource tools. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any preconditions or context such as which site it applies to or how the health data should be interpreted operationally. The only signal is the verb 'Read', leaving usage entirely to inference.

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