UniFi Protect: List Viewers

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

readOnlyHint already declares this as a safe read operation, and the description adds useful context that it reports current live-view assignments. It does not add details on freshness, pagination, authentication, or response shape beyond 'currently displaying.'

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource stated immediately. Every phrase contributes to what is listed and what relationship is returned.

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 with no output schema, the description gives enough context to know it returns Viewport devices and their current live view. The exact response structure is not described, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly does not add unnecessary parameter guidance.

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,' and a clear resource, 'UniFi Protect Viewport devices,' plus the returned relationship of which live view each is displaying. It implicitly separates itself from list_liveviews by focusing on Viewport hardware, but it does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling.

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?

Usage is implied: inspect Viewport devices and their currently assigned live views. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing versus list_liveviews or other list siblings.

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