get_device_details

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds meaningful behavior: reads are read-only, the device is resolved by MAC first then by name, and the return includes configuration and runtime data. It does not discuss failure modes, but the annotation lowers the bar.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and return contents, then gives alternatives and args. The Args block duplicates the schema descriptions, but the overall structure remains clear and 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?

For a read-only detail lookup, the description covers what the tool returns, how the device is resolved, and how it differs from get_device_stats. It does not specify output format or error behavior, but with no output schema and a low-complexity tool, this is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description repeats the Args and adds a small behavioral detail about MAC-first resolution, but it does not substantially extend the semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed configuration and runtime record for one UniFi device.' It then enumerates the returned content (ports, radios, uplink, system stats, temperatures, traffic counters), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_device_stats.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use list_devices to find the MAC and get_device_stats for a metrics-only view without the full config dump. This directly guides tool selection against two relevant sibling tools.

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