Get SD-WAN configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing further — no note on what is returned when the id is unknown, no caching or error behavior.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness means the sentence carries almost no information beyond the tool name.

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-resource read with one required, schema-documented parameter, the minimum is met. But with no output schema, the description could have described the returned configuration shape or error behavior and does not.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage ("SD-WAN config id"), the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format hints or sourcing guidance for the id, so this sits at the baseline.

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 verb+resource ("Get a single SD-WAN configuration") is clear, and "single" distinguishes it from the list variant. However, it does not distinguish this from close siblings such as unifi_sm_get_sdwan_config_status or unifi_gen_getsdwanconfigbyid, so an agent gets only partial routing signal.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus unifi_sm_list_sdwan_configs or the status sibling, nor any hint that the id typically comes from the list call. Nothing beyond the name implies usage context.

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