Get LAG

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description's help. The description adds only the enum values and member ports, which is output content already carried by the existing output schema, so it contributes almost nothing behavioral beyond the structured 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the operation first and the returned detail second, with no filler or 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?

For a two-parameter read-by-ID tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers what the caller needs; the only gap is the absence of any note distinguishing a LAG from an MC-LAG domain or pointing at unifi_list_lags for ID discovery.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (lagId and siteId), so the schema already documents them fully. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance for the IDs, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (LAG) plus the scope of the response (type LOCAL/SWITCH_STACK/MULTI_CHASSIS and member ports), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely related unifi_list_lags or unifi_get_mc_lag_domain siblings, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this tool.

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 single-resource-by-ID shape and the required lagId/siteId imply the standard drill-down pattern after unifi_list_lags, but the description never states when to use this versus list or mc-lag-domain tools, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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