protect_list_sensors

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, making the safety profile clear. The description adds value by detailing the return format (array with fields like id, modelKey, name, etc.), going beyond annotations. However, it does not mention potential limits or pagination, which are minor gaps.

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 a single sentence followed by a detailed list of return fields. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. The list is structured but slightly verbose; however, every element is relevant.

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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides a thorough breakdown of returned fields. It lacks details on ordering, filtering, or authentication requirements, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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, with schema coverage at 100%. Following guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description adds no param-specific information but cannot improve on an empty 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 clearly states 'List all sensors managed by UniFi Protect', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like protect_get_sensor (single sensor) and other list tools for different entities.

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 retrieving all sensors but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., protect_get_sensor for a single sensor, or other list tools). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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