get_protect_system_info

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

The description discloses that the operation is read-only and details what it reports: Protect system version, NVR/storage status, and counts of cameras and accessories. This adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying the exact informational scope. It does not discuss output shape or error conditions, but for a simple read-only info tool the behavioral disclosure is adequate.

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 and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary, a read-only clarity statement, the main use case, sibling alternatives, and the parameter definition. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose with no redundant filler.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, the intended high-level use case, the default behavior when 'device' is omitted, and which sibling tools cover adjacent needs. No critical context is missing for an agent to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description's Args section essentially repeats the schema's parameter description for 'device'. No additional parameter meaning, constraints, or examples are provided, so the description does not add value beyond the schema.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Return UniFi Protect system information for one console, including device counts.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling inventory and health tools by naming what it does not do (list_cameras, get_protect_accessories, get_camera_health_summary).

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: use this for a high-level overlay of a Protect deployment, and use named sibling tools for individual device inventory or camera connectivity. This leaves little ambiguity about when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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