protect_list_link_stations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, ensuring a safe read operation. Description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the array structure and specific fields (id, modelKey, name, mac, state, etc.). No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second describes return schema. Every word earns its place; no redundancy. Front-loaded with the action.

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 parameterless list tool with annotations and output schema described, the description is complete. It covers the return structure and key fields, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function or output.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description compensates by outlining the return fields, which is particularly helpful since there is no parameter to describe.

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?

Description starts with clear verb 'List' and resource 'all link stations', using domain qualifier 'UniFi Protect'. Sibling tools include protect_list_lights, protect_list_sensors, etc., so this tool is uniquely identified.

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?

No explicit instruction on when to use this tool versus alternatives like protect_get_link_station or protect_list_alarm_hubs. The description implies it is for listing all link stations, but does not rule out other contexts.

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