unifi_protect_auth_status

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it logs in and makes a real call by default, distinguishes live results from cached state, reports whether writes are enabled, and explains that absent tools indicate configuration issues rather than bugs. This is rich, honest behavioral disclosure.

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 compact yet information-dense, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Every sentence earns its place: behavior, outputs, failure mode, and usage guidance are all included without repetition or fluff.

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 single-parameter diagnostic tool with a readOnlyHint annotation and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers default behavior, configurable fast path, reported values, unconfigured setup steps, and when to call it first. Nothing essential is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'probe' parameter. The tool description reinforces the default behavior and hints at the fast cached path, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's own parameter description.

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 and resource ('Check whether this server can actually reach your UniFi Protect console') and clearly distinguishes this from data-listing siblings by framing it as a connectivity/diagnostic tool. It also enumerates the reported 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: run it when something is not working, and call it first when an expected tool is missing. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the diagnostic context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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