unifi_protect_get_camera

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adss value beyonnd that by disclosing the payoff load size (8-15 KB) and inner composition (including live statistics) — info the agent needs to expect a heavy response. It does not mention auth/rate-limit context, but for a read-only get those are lower stakes.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: purpose is front-loaded, the size warning follows, and the sibling routing closes. Each sentence earns its place and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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-record get with one well-documented required parameter and a readOnly annotation, the description is complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by describing both the payload's contents and its approximate size, so an agent knows what to expect.

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%, so the schema already documents cameraId thoroughly, incluing its source (from list_cameras), format (24-char hex), and negative guidance (not name/MAC). The description itself adds no param-level detail; per baseline with high coverage, 3 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 and resource ('Get one camera's complete record') and immediately enumerates what it covers (encoder channels, zones, masks, OSD/LED, ISP tuning, live statistics). It is clearly differentiated from siblings, especially by naming 'every setting the console holds', which distinguishes it from unifi_protect_list_cameras' summary view and unifi_protect_get_camera_snapshot.'

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 ruouting: 'Prefer unifi_protect_list_cameras nless you speccifically need a field it does not carry.' It also provides a cost sentiment ('large, roughly 8-15KB') that juustifies preferring the lighter alternative. No inference is required.

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