unifi_protect_check_settings

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description states that it 'changes nothing' and explains its actual behavior as 'reports findings and names the tool that would fix each one'. This gives an accurate, non-contradictory picture of side effects and output semantics, adding value beyond the annotation.

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?

Every sentence carries distinct content: scope, finding categories, intended use, and read-only behavior. The key intent phrase is placed before the read-only clarification, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 no parameters and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers invocation, behavioral contract, and the nature of the result ('reports findings and names the tool that would fix each one'). It is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool correctly without further documentation.

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 zero properties, and the description explicitly confirms that no configuration is needed by stating it checks 'every camera and the console'. With zero parameters the baseline is 4; the description adds conceptual meaning by framing the tool as a whole-system scan rather than a targeted query.

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, 'Check', against a clear resource ('every camera and the console') and enumerates concrete problem categories such as gated-off detectors, cameras keeping no footage, and storage about to stop recording. It also explicitly identifies itself as the tool for 'are my camera settings correct', which distinguishes it from the sibling get/list/export tools.

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 an explicit intended-query mapping — 'This is the tool for "are my camera settings correct"' — which tells an agent when to select it. It does not enumerate exclusions or name alternative tools for the same job, but none of the sibling tools perform this cross-device consistency check, so the omission is minor.

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