cisco_umbrella_list_protocols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET) and the endpoint, implying read-only, and documents each parameter's meaning. However, it does not address pagination behavior limits, authentication, or other operational caveats, leaving some 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the API endpoint and a structured Args list. No redundant sentences; every element serves a purpose.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description explains all parameters and the endpoint. It lacks explicit cross-tool guidance, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward 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%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly via an Args section that explains identity filtering, pagination, sort fields, and order values, adding substantial meaning beyond the bare 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 opens with 'List discovered network protocols (App Discovery),' providing a specific verb, resource, and context. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_applications and list_application_categories by focusing on protocols.

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 identifies the App Discovery domain but does not explicitly explain when to choose this over list_applications or list_application_categories. Usage is implied by the tool name and resource, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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