protection_domain_list

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that limit controls pagination and the result includes returned, limit, truncated flags for transparency. It also mentions target from config. No destructive behavior implied, and read-only nature is clear.

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 concise with a clear header and argument list. Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Could be slightly more structured, but overall efficient.

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?

With no output schema, description explains key return fields (extId, name, replicationType) and pagination flags. It lacks error handling details, but provides sufficient context for a list operation.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning: explains limit as max rows (default 500) and its pagination behavior, and target as Prism Central target name from config. This provides context beyond raw schema types.

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 clearly states it lists protection domains/policies with specific fields (extId, name, replicationType). The [READ] tag reinforces it's a read operation. It distinguishes from siblings like snapshot_list and recovery_point_list by naming the exact resource.

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 arguments but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like snapshot_list or recovery_point_list. It lacks context for selection among similar list tools.

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