unifi_get_client_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It uses 'get' implying a read-only operation but does not disclose behavior like throttling, permissions, or what happens when no clients are connected. The legacy API note adds some transparency, but more detail about side effects or constraints would improve clarity.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. First sentence states the core purpose and legacy note. Second sentence directly contrasts with sibling and lists key returned fields. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and return value fields. It lacks explicit mention of return format (e.g., single object or array) and potential edge cases but is sufficient for a low-complexity tool.

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?

The input schema has one optional parameter (site_id) with 0% description coverage, meaning no schema-level documentation. The tool description does not mention site_id at all, so the agent gains no additional understanding of its purpose, format, or effect beyond its title.

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?

Description clearly states the tool fetches detailed stats for currently connected clients, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling 'unifi_list_clients' by noting it is richer and listing additional data fields (signal strength, tx/rx rate, etc.).

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?

Description provides clear context by naming the sibling 'unifi_list_clients' as the simpler alternative, implying when to choose this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if only basic list is needed) or advise on the legacy API status, though 'legacy API' hints at potential instability.

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