unifi_get_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it is 'verified against 10.6.106' and that the API 'returns ONLY applicationVersion' with 'no isUniFiOSConsole or other field', which helps an agent avoid expecting extra fields.

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?

Three short sentences each carry distinct information: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. The important 'returns ONLY applicationVersion' caveat is front-loaded, and there is 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, return value, behavioral limitation, and intended usage context. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter details to explain, and the description does not introduce any confusing parameter references.

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 states a specific verb and resource, 'Get UniFi Network application info', and immediately names the concrete return value, 'applicationVersion'. This cleanly distinguishes it from the many sibling unifi_get_* tools by identifying it as the version/info endpoint.

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 tells the agent when to use it: 'Use for: version checks before calling version-gated tools.' This is direct usage guidance even though no alternative tool is named, because the tool's purpose is unique among siblings.

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