Get LAG

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that — no behavior for an unknown/invalid id, no note on whether LAG membership or member ports are included, and no return-shape cues.

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?

A single compact phrase with zero waste and the scope constraint front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, but structurally it is efficient.

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, no annotation gaps, and an undocumented required identifier, the description should say what a 'detail' response contains and where the id comes from. For a get-by-id tool these are the two things an agent actually needs, and both are absent.

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 single parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema does not say whether it is a numeric LAG id, a UUID, or a name. The description does not compensate at all — it never mentions the identifier or how to obtain it from list_lags.

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 the resource (Link Aggregation Group) and the scope (a single LAG, detail-level), which distinguishes it from the list-style sibling unifi_net_list_lags without opening either schema. The retrieval verb is only implied by the tool name rather than stated in the description, but an agent can still tell what it returns.

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 call this versus unifi_net_list_lags or unifi_net_get_lagpage, and no indication that the id must first be obtained elsewhere. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the name.

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