unifi_get_device_statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies that the tool returns 'latest live statistics', documents the exact fields returned, and discloses an API limitation (no per-switch-port counters). No contradictions with 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 well-structured with the purpose first, then a list of return values, a note about limitations, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise (e.g., the note about API version could be integrated).

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated) and annotations, the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, return fields, limitations (port stats unavailable), and contextual use cases, leaving no critical 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for siteId and deviceId. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the straightforward parameters. A 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('latest live statistics for a device'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool unifi_get_device by stating that the latter is for config (channel, power, port assignment).

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 states when to use this tool ('device health and AP radio metrics') and when to use the alternative ('For config... use unifi_get_device'). Also notes that port-level live stats are unavailable, guiding the agent away from incorrect usage.

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