unifi_protect_list_users

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already declares the operation safe, so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds useful context about the returned data (role, last login), but does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as ordering, pagination, authentication requirements, or error behavior. It does not contradict the annotation.

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 short sentences carry all the essential information: what the tool does and why an agent would use it. There is no repetition of the tool name or schema, and the primary function is front-loaded.

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-parameter read-only list tool, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It names the resource, the key output fields, and the intended use case. With no output schema present, the description adequately conveys what the agent should expect.

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 parameter-level elaboration is unnecessary. The schema coverage is effectively complete with no properties to document, and the description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed.

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') with a clear resource ('accounts that can sign in to Protect') and adds detail about what is returned (role and last login). It clearly distinguishes this from the camera/event/liveview listing siblings by focusing on user accounts and access auditing.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Useful for auditing who has access to the cameras.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions. For a simple zero-parameter listing tool, this is sufficient but not maximally explicit.

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