unifi_get_device_statistics

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context by documenting API version verification, the absence of per-switch-port counters, and the limitation on port-level live stats—valuable beyond the 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 dense but organized: it leads with the core purpose, lists representative return fields compactly, and then covers limitations and routing to the sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not fully detail return values; it already covers the tool's use cases, its API-level limitation, and its relationship to unifi_get_device. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and avoid misapplications.

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 already describes both required parameters (siteId, deviceId) at 100% coverage, and the description adds no extra parameter-level guidance. However, the parameter names and schema descriptions are sufficiently self-explanatory for this simple case.

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 ('Get') and resource ('latest live statistics for a device'), and enumerates the returned metrics, making the tool's scope obvious. It also distinguishes itself from unifi_get_device by noting that config operations belong to that sibling.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool for device health and AP radio metrics, and names the alternative unifi_get_device for configuration tasks. It also warns that per-port switch byte/error/PoE-power counters are not available, preventing misuse.

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