unifi_gen_getconnectedclientdetails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond a documentation URL — no note on what the detail payload contains, whether it requires the client to be actively connected, or any failure mode (e.g., unknown clientId).

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?

It is short and front-loads the operation name, which is good, but the remainder is a generated provenance URL that adds little actionable value for an agent and consumes half of an already minimal description.

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?

With no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should explain what 'details' are returned and how to supply the client identifier. Instead it gives only a source URL, leaving an agent unable to predict the response shape or the precondition that the client be currently connected.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single required parameter. It never mentions clientId, where to obtain it (e.g., from a list-clients call), or how it relates to the connected client entity — only the schema's UUID pattern hints at the format.

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+resource ('Get Connected Client Details'), so the agent knows this retrieves the detail record for a single connected client. However, it does not distinguish this from close siblings such as unifi_net_get_client or unifi_gen_getconnectedclientoverviewpage, leaving ambiguity about which client-retrieval tool to pick.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus unifi_net_get_client, the connected-client overview page tool, or the client action tool. The agent must infer that this requires a known clientId and returns full details rather than a list.

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