Get client

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The only added behavior is that the result matches unifi_list_clients entry shape, which is largely restated by the output schema. No auth, error, or not-found behavior is disclosed, so a 3 is appropriate given the annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one useful contract detail. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the two required params are fully documented. Annotations cover the read-only nature. The definition is nearly complete for a simple getter, with only the not-found/permission behavior left unstated.

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% for both parameters, so siteId and clientId are already documented by the schema. The description's 'by ID' adds no format, constraint, or scope detail beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific connected client') and pins the access key ('by ID'), which separates it from the list-style siblings. It also names unifi_list_clients to anchor the return shape. It stops short of a crisp sibling-vs-sibling routing statement, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'specific ... by ID' versus the list tool makes the single-record lookup case inferable, but there is no explicit 'use this when you already have a clientId' or a 'for all clients use unifi_list_clients' exclusion. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the choice.

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