UniFi: Get Device Stats

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: the returned data is the console's current snapshot and no history endpoint exists. This tells the agent the result will not be a time series and the API cannot fulfill historical requests. This is exactly the kind of extra context that helps invocation.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and payload; the second adds a crucial caveat about snapshot-only semantics. Every sentence earns its place and the scope is instantly clear.

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 telemetry tool, the combination is complete: schema explains both parameters, annotations mark it read-only, and the description states what data is returned and that it is snapshot-only. Without an output schema, the description still gives the agent enough understanding of the returned fields to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully explains deviceId (UUID from unifi_list_devices, not MAC/name) and site (three accepted forms, defaulting behavior, and unifi_list_sites reference). The description adds no parameter information, but with full schema coverage, baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a device's latest telemetry', and enumerates exactly which metrics are included (uptime, CPU/memory utilization, load averages, uplink throughput, per-radio retry rates). It also distinguishes the tool from history/time-series endpoints and from generic device retrieval siblings like unifi_get_device.

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?

'This is the current snapshot the console holds, not a time series — there is no history endpoint in this API' clearly tells the agent when this tool is not appropriate (when historical data is needed), while the 'latest telemetry' wording implies its intended use. It stops short of naming explicit alternative tools for historical queries, but the context is strong.

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