unifi_get_device

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

Annotations already mark the operation as readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by enumerating the deep configuration fields returned and warning that the LIST endpoint returns capability-tag arrays instead of structured objects, which affects how the agent should interpret responses.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose before enumerating fields. Every sentence adds distinguishing value (return fields, list-endpoint difference, use cases, alternative), though the return-field list is somewhat long and may be covered by the output schema.

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?

For a parameter-light read tool with an output schema present, the description covers the main selection context: what the endpoint is for, how it differs from the list endpoint, and when to use the statistics tool instead. No crucial call-time information appears 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?

Both schema parameters have descriptions ('Site ID', 'Device ID') and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to elaborate. It adds no further semantics about ID formats or how to resolve them, but the schema already covers the meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description opens with 'Get full configuration for a device', which names the verb and resource precisely. It distinguishes itself from unifi_list_devices by specifying fields only available in the detail endpoint and from unifi_get_device_statistics by contrasting live stats. This removes ambiguity among the get/list 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?

The description explicitly states 'Use for: switch port layout/PoE state, AP radio config, uplink topology' and directs 'For live throughput/CPU/memory, use unifi_get_device_statistics.' This gives concrete conditions and names the alternative tool, leaving no inference needed.

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