unifi_get_client

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the output shape mirrors that of 'unifi_list_clients', providing valuable behavioral context about return consistency. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentence that conveys all essential information without any redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

The description, combined with annotations and schema, provides sufficient context for a simple get-by-ID tool. The mention of 'connected client' adds slight ambiguity (vs. all clients), but overall it is complete enough given the tool's simplicity and existing structured data.

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% with both 'siteId' and 'clientId' described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so it effectively meets the baseline for parameter semantics.

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', the resource 'specific connected client', and the identifier 'by ID'. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'unifi_list_clients' by noting the same shape, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 when a single client's details are needed by ID, and the mention of 'same shape as unifi_list_clients entries' indirectly contrasts with listing. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative scenarios, which would elevate clarity.

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