UniFi Protect: Auth Status

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the default probe logs in and makes a real network call rather than reading cache, and the probe=false path is fast and local. It also enumerates what is reported (host, account, version, TLS verification, write-enablement) and the fallback behavior of returning setup steps when unconfigured.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the diagnostic framing before the return-value enumeration. Three dense sentences, all load-bearing, though the middle sentence listing reported fields is long and could be tightened.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the reported fields and the setup-steps fallback. For a one-parameter diagnostic tool with minimal annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret it 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 coverage is 100% and the single probe parameter is already fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the default semantics ('By default it logs in and makes a real call') and contrasts it with the cached path, adding a little meaning beyond the schema without restating it verbatim.

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: 'Check whether this server can actually reach your UniFi Protect console.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it makes a real console call rather than reporting cached state, which separates it from auth_login and get_system_info.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions: 'this is the tool to run when something is not working' and 'Call this first when a tool you expected is not listed.' It even explains the diagnostic interpretation of an absent sibling tool, which no other tool in the list would tell the agent.

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