get_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves devices but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of objects with fields). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Get all UniFi network devices') and adds clarifying examples without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly. There's no wasted verbiage or structural issues.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for basic understanding. It specifies the resource type and examples, which suffices for a simple read operation. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or operational constraints, leaving some contextual gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, as there are none to explain. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, where the description focuses on purpose rather than inputs.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all UniFi network devices') with specific examples (access points, switches, gateways). It distinguishes the tool's scope from siblings like get_clients (which gets clients) or get_networks (which gets networks), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks 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?

The description implies usage context by specifying 'all UniFi network devices', suggesting it's for retrieving device inventory rather than client or network data. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_device_activity (for activity logs) or restart_device (for device management), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is contextually implied but not clearly articulated.

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