unifi_protect_list_cameras

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds important behavioral context by disclosing that the result is a summary, not the full console record. It also explains why this matters, which helps the agent set correct expectations about response size and scope.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and the exact output fields, and the second sentence adds the summary-vs-full distinction and sibling alternative. Every sentence earns its place without padding.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by listing the expected fields, clarifying the summary nature, and pointing to the sibling tool for fuller detail. Nothing essential for invoking this tool correctly 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 input schema has no parameters, so the description is not required to explain parameter behavior. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no conflicting or redundant parameter information.

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 ('List every camera on the console') and enumerates the fields returned: id, name, connection state, recording mode, firmware, and capabilities. It also explicitly contrasts itself with unifi_protect_get_camera, making the tool's scope and differentiation clear.

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?

The description states when to use this tool versus the alternative: it returns a summary rather than the full camera record, and explicitly directs the agent to use unifi_protect_get_camera when the full record for one camera is needed. This gives clear selection guidance.

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