UniFi: Get Device

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation, and the description builds on that by clarifying the depth of data returned and its relationship to the list variant. It does not disclose behavior for missing devices, but for a read-only get-by-id tool the annotation plus the detail is adequate.

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?

One well-structured sentence front-loads the core action and resource, then adds specific differentiators and the sibling comparison. Every clause earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 fetch tool with only one required parameter, the description plus the rich schema and readOnlyHint fully covers what an agent needs: which id to pass, which site semantics apply, and what richness to expect in the response.

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 each parameter already has a rich description: site resolution rules and the deviceId's origin and format. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema carries the full burden.

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 and resource: 'Get one adopted device in full.' It also distinguishes itself from unifi_list_devices by naming the exact fields it adds (features, interfaces, uplink, adoption timestamps), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need the full single-device payload that unifi_list_devices trims away. It names the alternative tool and what differentiates them, though it stops short of explicitly stating excluded cases such as 'use unifi_list_devices for summary lists.'

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