unifi_get_device

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

The description provides extensive detail on the return structure, including fields like interfaces.ports and interfaces.radios, and contrasts with the list endpoint. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds significant behavioral context beyond that.

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 well-structured, front-loading the purpose, then detailing return fields, and ending with usage guidance. It is slightly long but every sentence adds value. Minor improvement could be shortening the field enumeration.

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 complexity of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, how it differs from the list endpoint, and suggests alternatives for specific use cases. No significant gaps.

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?

Both parameters (siteId, deviceId) have schema descriptions at 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, but the tool's purpose makes the parameter usage clear. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 'Get full configuration for a device' and lists specific return fields. It distinguishes from the list endpoint by noting differences in returned data format. The tool's purpose is 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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for switch port layout, PoE state, AP radio config, uplink topology) and when not to (for live statistics, direct to unifi_get_device_statistics). This provides clear guidance for tool selection.

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