unifi_gen_getswitchstack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond citing the upstream API doc version, not even what a switch stack response contains or how unknown IDs behave.

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-loaded with no filler, but the second half is only a documentation URL, and the whole thing is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description should at least say what is returned and how to obtain the ID. Neither is present, leaving the agent to infer the entire contract.

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% for the single required switchStackId parameter (uuid format, no description). The description does not explain where that ID comes from (e.g., list_switch_stacks) or what it identifies, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb ("Get") and a resource ("Switch Stack"), which is enough to know it retrieves a single switch stack. However, it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling unifi_net_get_switch_stack (or from unifi_gen_getswitchstackpage), so an agent has no way to choose between them from the text alone.

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 tool, when to prefer the net_* or page variant, or what prerequisites (site context, stack existence) apply. Usage is only inferable from the name, and the trailing doc URL is not usage guidance.

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