unifi_get_sysinfo

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects, though it is clear from the verb 'Get'. No disclosure of potential permissions or rate limits.

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 sentence that lists specific fields, making it concise. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the parameter explanation.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not indicate the structure or completeness of the response. The tool likely returns an object with system details, but this is not conveyed.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the site_id parameter beyond the default. It mentions 'for the site', which adds some context, but the parameter's purpose and acceptable values are not elaborated.

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 it gets system information for the site, listing specific attributes like controller version, build, timezone, etc. It is distinct from sibling tools that operate on specific entities (clients, devices, networks) or perform mutations.

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 when or when-not guidance is given, but it is implied this is the tool for reading global system settings. The sibling context helps, but the description does not mention alternatives or exclusions.

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