Get switch stack

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what is returned, whether the stack must exist, or what happens on an unknown id.

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 short sentence with no waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficient communication. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

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 would need to carry the burden of explaining both the identifier semantics and the returned shape of a switch stack. It does neither, so an agent knows the tool's name but not how to use it 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 0% for the single required parameter "id," so the description must compensate and does not. It never states that "id" is the switch stack identifier (nor whether it accepts a name or a MAC-like value), leaving the one parameter essentially undocumented.

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?

"Switch stack detail for a single stack" implies a single-item fetch and so contrasts implicitly with unifi_net_list_switch_stacks, but the phrasing largely restates the tool name and title rather than stating a verb like "retrieve." An agent can guess the intent but gets no explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus unifi_net_list_switch_stacks or the raw request tool. There are no stated prerequisites, no exclusions, and no indication of what an agent should already know before fetching a stack.

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