UniFi Protect: Get System Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds non-obvious behavior: the server depends on Protect's private API, which changes between releases, making the returned version a compatibility signal. It stops short of describing output shape or failure modes beyond 404s, but that is a minor gap for a no-arg info call.

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, front-loaded with the payload contents before the usage hint and the compatibility caveat. Each sentence carries distinct information: what you get, when to call it, and how to interpret the version field.

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, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, so an agent knows what to expect. For a zero-arg read-only tool with a readOnlyHint annotation, nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline applies. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 ('Overview of the console') and enumerates exactly what is returned: model, Protect version, firmware, timezone, uptime, storage use, adopted device counts. No sibling tool overlaps this resource, and an agent can identify it without opening the 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 an explicit ordering recommendation ('Worth calling first on an unfamiliar system') plus a concrete diagnostic trigger: check the reported version against the README if a tool starts returning 404. That is when-to-use and when-to-reach-for-it-again guidance in one pass.

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