unifi_get_wifi

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by detailing that the tool returns additional optional fields like clientFilteringPolicy and blackoutScheduleConfiguration. This goes beyond the annotations, providing useful behavioral context without contradiction.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the primary action and then lists specific fields. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler. It is maximally concise while conveying essential information.

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 low complexity (2 required parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present), the description is complete in explaining what extra fields are provided relative to the list tool. It could mention error handling, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for that. Overall, it adequately covers the tool's context.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with both parameters (siteId, wifiBroadcastId) having clear descriptions. The description does not add new semantic information about the parameters themselves; it focuses on the output scope. Hence, baseline score 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 clearly specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'full configuration for a WiFi broadcast (SSID)', and distinguishes itself from list tools by emphasizing it includes optional fields not returned by unifi_list_wifi. It also lists specific fields, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 states that this tool returns optional fields not always returned by the list counterpart, guiding the agent to use this when full configuration is needed. Although it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, the context is clear enough to differentiate from the sibling list tool.

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