unifi_console_session_status

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context: it logs in if needed, reports cookie lifetime, CSRF rotation, and server safety settings. The 'Logs in if needed' side effect sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint=true (session establishment writes state), but it is idempotent and non-destructive to the controller configuration, so this is disclosed rather than contradictory.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the when-to-use trigger, then the return shape. The explicit 'Returns JSON' line is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is brief and not wasteful.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it inspects, that it may log in, when to reach for it, and the shape of the result. Nothing material is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level detail is needed or missing.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource — checks the connection and reports the running account, its permissions, session facts, controller version, and server safety settings. This diagnostic/status role is clearly distinguishable from the 28 sibling tools, which are resource-specific operations (firewall_policy, wifi, poe_overview, 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?

Explicitly says 'Use it first when a call fails with a permission or authentication error,' giving a clear triggering condition. It stops short of naming an alternative or a when-not-to-use case, but no sibling serves as a substitute for this diagnostic, so the guidance is effectively complete.

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