get_controller_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: this endpoint is unauthenticated and independent of the server's auth mode, plus the underlying route GET /api/info. It omits rate-limit or failure-mode notes, but the safety-relevant auth behavior is covered and an output schema exists for the return shape.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loading the identity/fields and then the auth property. Every clause adds information, with no padding.

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 zero-parameter, read-only identity probe with an output schema already documenting the return values, the description supplies everything needed: what it returns, the underlying route, and that no authentication is required.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already shows; the baseline for a no-param tool 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the Omada controller's own identity') and enumerates the returned fields (controller_version, omadac_id, configured), which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_sites and get_clients. An agent can distinguish it without opening the 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?

It gives a clear usage condition: the call is unauthenticated and works regardless of the server's configured auth mode, which tells the agent it is safe to call at any time. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit exclusions, but the context is unambiguous.

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