unifi_get_dpi_stats

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

No annotations provided; description only states it's a read operation and what data it returns. Does not disclose limitations, rate limits, caching behavior, or default site_id behavior.

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?

Single sentence, 18 words, concise and front-loaded. Could improve by adding parameter detail, but it is efficient.

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 only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should explain the parameter and return structure. It explains the data returned but not the format or keying (e.g., per client list).

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 has one optional parameter (site_id) with default, but description does not mention it at all. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameter.

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 verb 'Get', resource 'Deep Packet Inspection statistics per client', and specifics of returned data (tx/rx bytes, packet counts by application category). It distinguishes from siblings like unifi_get_client_stats and unifi_get_site_dpi_stats.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., unifi_get_site_dpi_stats). Usage is implied by the purpose but not clarified.

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