protect_list_link_stations

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only operation (readOnlyHint=true). The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as the return format (array) and specific fields included, thus providing useful transparency about what the tool returns.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides key return details. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 list-all tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the function returns and even references documentation version (7.1.83 docs). No missing context.

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?

The tool has no parameters, and the input schema is fully covered (100% coverage). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it provides no contradictory information. Baseline score for zero parameters is used.

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 link stations managed by UniFi Protect', specifying the verb (list) and resource (link stations). It distinguishes from sibling get tools (e.g., protect_get_link_station for a single station) and other list tools for different resources.

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 explains what the tool does, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., when to use protect_get_link_station instead), which would improve guidance.

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