unifi_get_device_statistics

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 valuable context by listing specific returned fields and noting the API version and limitation (port-level stats unavailable). This goes beyond annotations to fully inform the agent.

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?

Description is concise (three sentences plus a note), front-loads the purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, return fields, usage guidance, and sibling tool reference. No redundancy.

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 output schema exists, the description still provides a comprehensive list of return fields and important limitations. It covers what the tool does, what it doesn't, and when to use it. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 parameters having clear descriptions ('Site ID', 'Device ID'). The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning. Baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves live device statistics and distinguishes itself from sibling unifi_get_device (for config). It explicitly differentiates by noting what it returns and what it does not (no port-level stats), leaving no ambiguity.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use for: device health and AP radio metrics. For config (channel, power, port assignment), use unifi_get_device.' It also explains the limitation (no per-switch-port stats), helping the agent decide when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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