get_protect_accessories

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms 'Read-only operation' while adding operational detail beyond the annotation: it 'queries each accessory type on the targeted console and returns the raw records grouped by type along with a per-type count summary.' It also discloses scope exclusions. This adds meaningful context beyond the structured 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by behavior and usage guidance that each earn their place. The only inefficiency is the Args block, which duplicates the schema verbatim; otherwise the explanation is compact and well-ordered.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, accessory types, return shape (raw records grouped by type with counts), usage context, and exclusions. The internal structure of the raw records is unspecified, but nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema's description of 'device' is identical to the Args section in the tool description. Because the structured schema already carries full parameter documentation, the description adds no new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opening line 'Inventory all UniFi Protect accessories: lights, sensors, chimes, and viewers' names a specific verb, resource, and explicit accessory types. It further distinguishes from siblings by stating 'it does not return camera devices (see list_cameras) nor event history,' so an agent can differentiate it from list_cameras and event-history tools without opening their schemas.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to audit Protect peripherals alongside cameras' and then gives exclusions: 'it does not return camera devices (see list_cameras) nor event history.' This provides both a positive use case and a named alternative, leaving no ambiguity about when to select this tool over its siblings.

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