protect_list_alarm_hubs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about API version (7.1.60), thin object nature, and that some fields are not verified - warning the agent to inspect a live response. This is useful beyond 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?

Description is three sentences, each with clear purpose: first states action, second lists return fields, third provides important caveat. No fluff, front-loaded.

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?

Given output schema exists and no parameters, the description adequately covers what is returned and warns about potential unreliability of some fields. Could mention if pagination exists, but not necessary for listing all.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description doesn't add any since there are none. Baseline is 4 for no parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'alarm hubs managed by UniFi Protect'. It distinguishes from sibling 'protect_get_alarm_hub' by indicating it returns all, not a single. It also lists specific fields included.

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 implies usage for listing all alarm hubs, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'protect_get_alarm_hub' or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The warning about untested fields is helpful but not about choice.

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