protect_get_viewer

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that the API returns a 'thin object' and that additional device-specific fields are not verified on the reference console, warning the agent to inspect a live response before relying on them.

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 concise with three sentences front-loaded with the purpose, followed by caveats. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, read-only, output schema exists), the description is complete. It lists key return fields and warns about potential missing fields, fully preparing the agent for what to expect.

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 input schema has one parameter 'id' with description 'Viewer ID', achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'viewer', specifying it retrieves details by ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'protect_list_viewers' which lists all viewers, and other 'protect_get_*' tools for specific device types.

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 when you need details for a specific viewer by ID, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. It does provide a caution about inspecting live responses due to potentially unverified fields, offering some guidance.

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