Network application info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by naming the concrete endpoint and the Cloud Connector dependency, but says nothing about authentication requirements, failure modes when the connector is unreachable, or cost/latency of the round trip.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the primary action stated first and the secondary use case after. Nothing to trim.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, yet it only says the endpoint is '/v1/info'. For a health-probe tool the agent would benefit from knowing whether the response includes version, hostname, uptime or status fields.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; nothing in the description misleads about inputs, and there is nothing further the description could reasonably add on this dimension.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reads /v1/info on the Network application') and even names the transport path (Cloud Connector), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling 'unifi_gen_getinfo', leaving the agent to guess which info endpoint to call.

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?

'Useful as a health probe' implies the intended use case but is hedged ('useful') rather than directive. There is no statement of when not to use it, no prerequisites, and no pointer to the near-duplicate 'unifi_gen_getinfo' alternative.

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