UniFi: Auth Status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms it reports/checks rather than mutates. It adds valuable context beyond the flag: it describes what is probed (reachability, transport, site, Network version) and that it returns settings guidance when something is missing. No hidden side effects or auth requirements are disclosed, but read-only is already covered.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: the first enumerates the report content, the second gives an actionable usage directive. The most important usage hint is placed at the start of the second sentence, with minimal waste.

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, read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it reports. It even includes edge-case interpretation (absent tool = older console/missing config), so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 zero parameters and vacuous 100% schema coverage, there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 specific verb ('Report') and resource (connectivity/auth status to a UniFi console), and enumerates the exact facts it returns: transport, site, Network version, and remediation. This distinguishes it from sibling data-fetching tools like unifi_list_clients and from unifi_request.

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 directs the agent to 'Call this FIRST whenever a tool you expected is not in the list,' and explains the reason (endpoints depend on console version). This gives a clear decision rule for when to use this tool instead of assuming an API bug.

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