unifi_protect_list_viewers

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description's job is to add context beyond it. It does add value by disclosing the return content (device list plus current live view per device). However, it doesn't mention whether offline/unadopted devices are included or whether authentication is required. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste. The verb, resource, and output detail are all front-loaded in natural reading order. Every word earns its place.

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 listing tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource and the key output attribute. No output schema exists, but the description adequately communicates what the agent will receive. Minor gaps like pagination, ordering, and handling of offline devices prevent a 5, though these are low-stakes for a simple list operation.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so the schema is trivially complete. The description need not explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('UniFi Protect Viewport devices'), and a distinctive output detail ('which live view each is currently displaying'). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_cameras, list_users, and list_liveviews, since it targets Viewport hardware rather than the live views themselves.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are named. However, the usage is reasonably implied by the precise name and description: use this when you need informmation about Viewport devices and their currently assigned live view. The distinction from list_liveviews is left for the agent to infer rather than stated.

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