protect_list_cameras

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context by listing exactly which fields are returned and, importantly, what the API does NOT expose (recording state, motion timestamps, etc.), surpassing what annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then lists fields. While dense with information, it is not overly verbose. The field enumeration could be streamlined but remains clear and complete.

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 zero parameters, a rich output schema (described in text), and full annotation coverage, the description provides complete context. It tells the agent exactly what to expect and what not to expect, with no gaps.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters; baseline is 4. No contradiction or missing info, but the description adds no parameter-specific value.

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 'List all cameras managed by UniFi Protect', identifying the specific verb (list) and resource (cameras). It distinguishes from sibling list tools for other entities like protect_list_alarm_hubs, protect_list_bridges, etc.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (when listing cameras), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative references. Given siblings are all similarly named list tools for different entities, usage is implied but not explicitly guided.

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