UniFi Protect: Get Event

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description is free to add value — and it does, enumerating the extra payload (per-object tracking, detected zones, licence plate text, vehicle attributes) that the list endpoint lacks. It stops short of covering failure behavior for an unknown/expired event id or any auth caveats.

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 sentences, zero padding. The differentiating payload is front-loaded in the first clause and the prerequisite is placed after it, matching the order an agent needs.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content and does so concretely via the metadata list. The main remaining gap is what happens on a missing or stale event id, which matters for a lookup-by-id tool.

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?

Single parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already defines eventId and its provenance. The description restates the same 'id from unifi_protect_list_events' instruction rather than adding new meaning (format, accepted prefixes, cross-event id sources), so it earns the baseline rather than more.

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 (fetch one event's full record) and explicitly contrasts it with the search/list results that omit detection metadata. An agent can distinguish it from unifi_protect_list_events and unifi_protect_get_event_thumbnail without opening a 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?

Gives clear operational context: obtain the id from unifi_protect_list_events, then call this to get the full record the list omitted. It does not state explicit exclusions (e.g. when a thumbnail call is preferable), but the sequencing guidance is unambiguous.

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