get_device_stats

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces and expands on this by listing exactly what metrics are returned and noting 'where applicable' for AP radio stats. This goes beyond the annotation's minimal signal, though it does not discuss rate limits or error conditions.

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, followed by a compact metric list and explicit sibling alternatives. The Args section is structured and each sentence contributes meaningful guidance without redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description names the expected return content in enough detail (CPU/memory, temperatures, fan, client counts, traffic, AP stats) for an agent to know what this tool provides. With all parameters documented and alternatives specified, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's Args section largely duplicates the schema rather than adding new semantics; it clarifies MAC format and device targeting, but these are already present in the schema descriptions.

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: 'Get performance and traffic statistics for one UniFi device.' It enumerates the metrics returned and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_device_details and list_devices, so an agent can immediately understand its scope relative to siblings.

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?

Provides clear routing guidance: use get_device_details for full config records, list_devices for lightweight summaries, and this tool specifically for metrics. It also frames the operation as read-only, helping the agent choose appropriate contexts.

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