UniFi Protect: List Cameras

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine behavioral context by explaining that this returns a deliberate summary rather than the console's full camera record and why ('thousands of fields across encoder profiles, zones and feature flags'). It also clarifies the non-obvious semantics of recordsAudio (a mic, switched on, audio actually retained), which prevents a misread. It stops short of disclosing pagination/limits or auth requirements, so not a 5.

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?

The purpose and field list are front-loaded before the sibling comparison, and every clause carries information. The single long sentence with a nested parenthetical is dense and slightly harder to scan than it needs to be, keeping it below a 5.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so by enumerating the fields and their meanings, including the tricky recordsAudio case. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool 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 per the baseline this is a 4. The description correctly implies this is an unfiltered console-wide listing rather than adding parameter guidance that doesn't exist.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List every camera on the console') and then enumerates the returned fields (id, name, connection state, recording mode, firmware, capabilities, recordsAudio). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling unifi_protect_get_camera, so an agent can choose between the two without opening either 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?

It names the alternative explicitly — 'use unifi_protect_get_camera when you need all of it for one camera' — and states the condition (wanting the full record) that selects that tool over this one. The summary-versus-full-record tradeoff is spelled out rather than left to inference.

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