unifi_protect_get_system_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it explains that the Protect version reported matters because the server talks to a private API that Ubiquiti changes between releases, and that version mismatch is a first diagnostic for 404 errors. This is genuinely useful operational context not inferable from structured fields.

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, each earning its place: the first defines return content, the second gives usage timing, the third explains a critical troubleshooting link. Dense but clear, with the most actionable information up front.

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 no-parameter, read-only informational tool, the description fully covers its contents, when to call it, and why a specific returned field (Protect version) matters for subsequent operations. No output schema exists, but the enumerated list substitutes adequately.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and the description need not explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing the description must compensate for.

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 states a specific resource ('the console') and enumerates the exact data returned: model, Protect version, firmware, timezone, uptime, storage, and device type counts. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cameras or list_users by focusing on system-level overview rather than entity lists.

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?

It explicitly recommends calling this tool 'first on an unfamiliar system,' which is strong situational guidance. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool is unique in scope among siblings, so no alternative is needed.

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