get_mobility_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it adds almost nothing: no statement of what 'detail' includes, no read-only confirmation, no auth or controller-resolution behavior. Only the verb 'Get' weakly implies a non-mutating read.

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?

A single short sentence with zero padding, so it is structurally clean and front-loaded. However, the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than genuine economy, which caps this dimension.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a tool requiring two identifiers on a controller-scoped API, the description omits any hint about sourcing device_id/workspace_id or the controller resolution chain that the schema only partially covers.

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 only 33%: the controller parameter is documented in the schema, but device_id and workspace_id have no description anywhere. The tool description contributes no meaning about what these identifiers are or where to obtain them, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detail for a UniFi Mobility device'), making the retrieval intent unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely named sibling list_mobility_devices or explain what distinguishes a single-device fetch from the list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_mobility_devices or list_mobility_device_clients, nor any stated prerequisite such as obtaining device_id from the list tool. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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