UniFi: Get Client

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

With readOnlyHint already present, the description adds useful behavioral context by explaining what the call returns: the full session detail, including uplink device and guest-access state. It does not cover stale-ID error behavior, but that is a minor gap for a simple read operation.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and identifier source, then adds a compact but valuable summary of the return payload.

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 simple read-only get-by-id tool with thorough schema documentation and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete. It explains what it returns and the provenance of the required id, and no output schema is needed because the return behavior is summarized clearly.

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 100%, and both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the UUID-not-MAC caveat and site alias resolution. The tool description adds little beyond reinforcing the id-from-list relationship, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('one connected client'), and the key identifier source ('from unifi_list_clients'). It clearly distinguishes this single-item lookup from the list-oriented sibling tools like unifi_list_clients.

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 and clientId parameter make the intended workflow clear: first call unifi_list_clients, then pass the returned id to this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'list first' guidance and read-only nature provide clear context.

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