esetprotect_list_detections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the legacy surface and scope but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with the occurTime bounds. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 with no wasted words. The legacy surface warning and the preference for v2 are front-loaded, making the key routing information immediately visible. It is concise and well-structured.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is thin. It doesn't explain return format, pagination semantics, or the meaning of deviceUuid filtering. The legacy/v2 distinction is helpful, but an agent would still need to infer several important details about how to call this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 40%, so the schema documents endTime and startTime but leaves pageSize, pageToken, and deviceUuid without descriptions. The description doesn't compensate for these undocumented parameters, but it does clarify the legacy scope and the occurTime filtering context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds some context but doesn't fill the gaps.

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 the tool lists detections, specifies the legacy v1 surface, and scopes it to endpoint antivirus/firewall detections. It distinguishes itself from the v2 sibling by naming the preferred alternative, though it doesn't fully describe what the v2 variant offers.

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?

It explicitly says to prefer esetprotect_list_detections_v2 for new integrations, which is a clear usage directive. However, it doesn't state when to use this v1 tool (e.g., legacy systems or specific compatibility needs), leaving some ambiguity about the exact conditions for choosing it.

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