unifi_get_lag

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is covered. Description adds value by specifying that the tool returns the LAG type (with possible values LOCAL/SWITCH_STACK/MULTI_CHASSIS) and member ports. This is additional behavioral context beyond the schema, but no further operational details (e.g., error handling, consistency guarantees) are provided.

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?

Single sentence of 17 words, no unnecessary information. Every word serves a purpose: verb, resource, output details. Extremely concise while being informative.

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 simple read-only tool with two straightforward parameters, full annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does and what information it returns. No critical gaps for correct invocation.

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 descriptions for both parameters ('LAG ID' and 'Site ID'). The description does not add extra semantic meaning to the parameters beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies since schema is complete.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Get full details of a LAG') and specifies the resource ('a LAG'). It includes specific details about the output (type with enum values and member ports), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like unifi_list_lags. The singular 'a LAG' implies it operates on a specific LAG, making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the need for a siteId or lagId, nor contrasts with unifi_list_lags (which lists LAGs) or other get tools. No context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use.

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