unifi_get_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the responsibility for behavioral transparency. 'Get health status' clearly indicates a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether the tool triggers a live speed test or only returns cached results, nor any other side effects or prerequisites. This is adequate but not rich.

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-structured sentence that is immediately informative. It lists the subsystems in a compact, parenthetical list without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should more thoroughly explain what the health status looks like (e.g., a summary object, per-subsystem metrics, or simple pass/fail). The current description lists what is included but leaves the return format ambiguous, making it incomplete for an agent that needs to interpret results.

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, and the schema shows no properties (100% coverage by definition). The description adds all necessary semantic meaning by defining the scope of health status for the listed subsystems. With no parameters to explain, a baseline of 4 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a clear resource ('health status of UniFi UDM Pro network subsystems') with enumerated subsystem names (WAN, LAN, WLAN, VPN, ISP speed, CPU/Memory usage). This differentiates it from sibling tools like unifi_list_devices or unifi_get_sysinfo, which have distinct purposes.

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 implies usage for retrieving overall network health, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like unifi_run_speedtest or unifi_get_sysinfo. However, the clear scope of health subsystems provides sufficient context without exclusions, so it earns a 4.

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