get_liveviews

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only operation' without contradicting it. It adds useful context beyond annotations: the exact returned fields, the targeting of a specific Protect console, and the explicit negative scope of not returning footage or snapshots.

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 well-structured: core action first, then scope and use cases, then the parameter explanation. It is compact and informative, though 'Read-only operation' is slightly redundant with the annotation and the Args block mirrors the schema.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the parameter resolution rule, the read-only nature, what fields are returned, and what is explicitly not returned. An agent has enough information to invoke and interpret 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, and the description's Args block essentially repeats the schema's wording for the optional `device` parameter. No additional semantic meaning, like format constraints or resolution order beyond the already-documented 'omit to use the first Protect-enabled device', is added.

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 opens with 'List all configured UniFi Protect liveviews (camera view layouts)', which is a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies the return contents (name, id, cameras, layout) and explicitly states it does not return footage or snapshots, distinguishing it from related media-retrieval tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover view groupings for dashboards or to confirm which cameras belong to a named liveview'. It also provides a when-not boundary by noting it 'does not return footage or snapshots'. However, it doesn't name alternative sibling tools for footage or snapshots, so it falls short of a 5.

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