unifi_get_switch_stack

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses the response shape (id, deviceId, name, units[], lags[], metadata.origin) and a version-dependent naming caveat — 'units[] (named `members` before 10.6.106)' — which is valuable context not present in the schema or annotations. No contradiction with the 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 two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the return-shape detail following. The field list is slightly dense, but every item (including the version caveat) earns its place by clarifying what the caller receives.

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?

With a 100%-covered two-parameter schema, readOnly annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns, and a version nuance. The only omission is not-found/error behavior for an invalid switchStackId, which is minor and rarely documented.

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%, and both parameters (siteId, switchStackId) are self-descriptive in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed since the schema already carries the meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Get full details of a Switch Stack' — and immediately scopes the tool's behavior with 'including all units and stacking topology.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool by explicitly stating it returns the same fields as the list response but for a single stack, so an agent can tell it apart from unifi_list_switch_stacks without opening either schema.

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 phrase 'Returns the same fields as the list response but for a single stack' clearly implies this tool is for fetching one stack's full details while the sibling list tool returns multiple stacks. However, it never names the alternative tool explicitly or provides an exclusion statement, leaving the when-to-use decision implied rather than direct.

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