unifi_protect_list_sensors

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that readings are extracted from the console's per-metric history arrays rather than returning the full raw arrays. This helps the agent anticipate a compact, filtered response and understand why the tool behaves that way.

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 two sentences with no wasted words: the first states the operation and output, the second gives a useful implementation detail. It is front-loaded with the most important information and remains compact.

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 parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the returned data categories and even the data source and transformation behavior. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema requires no explanation. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but with zero parameters this is not a gap; the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource, 'List UniFi Protect sensors', and immediately differentiates the tool from sibling list tools by enumerating the sensor-specific readings it returns. Even without an explicit sibling comparison, no agent could confuse this with list_cameras or list_lights.

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 makes the use case clear: call this when you need current sensor readings and states such state such as temperature, humidity, light, open/closed, motion, and battery. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but no sibling tool covers sensors, so the context is sufficient.

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