UniFi Protect: List Liveviews

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the bar for behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds genuinely useful chaining context (the id feeds update_viewer), but says nothing about whether views are per-user/per-account, whether an empty list is possible, or what a caller authentically needs beyond a valid session.

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, no filler, and the definition of the resource is front-loaded ahead of the downstream dependency. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 zero-param read with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the key returned field, and its consumer. It stops short of sketching the rest of the returned object (name, layout ordering) or noting authentication prerequisites, but nothing essential to calling it 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 of 4 applies. The description uses its budget instead on the return contract (the id field), which is the relevant semantic gap given no output schema exists.

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 (List) and resource (saved live views) and then defines the domain term inline as 'the named camera grid layouts shown on viewers and in the Protect app'. That definition distinguishes it from the sibling list_viewers and list_cameras tools without requiring the agent to open 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?

The second sentence gives a concrete downstream use: the returned id is what unifi_protect_update_viewer consumes to place a layout on a screen. That tells the agent when this tool is the right first step, though it offers no explicit exclusions or alternatives (e.g. how to enumerate viewers themselves).

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