unifi_get_device_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the data fields returned and mentions the optional filter, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication or rate limit requirements, or what happens if no device matches.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and key differentiation, and the second covers the optional parameter. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a list of returned fields and explains one parameter. However, it fails to explain the site_id parameter and does not describe the output structure or any edge cases. Adequate but with gaps.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters. It only explains the mac parameter as an optional filter for a specific MAC address. The site_id parameter, which has a default of 'default', is not explained at all, leaving the agent without understanding its purpose.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed device statistics from the legacy API.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from a sibling tool by listing richer fields (uptime, load, memory, etc.), making its specific function very clear.

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 a clear comparison to unifi_list_devices, indicating when to use this tool over that one. It also notes that mac is optional. However, it lacks explicit exclusion cases or guidance on when not to use it, and does not mention the legacy API as a potential consideration.

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