protect_list_ulp_users

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations, the description adds that enrolled-credential details (NFC cards, fingerprints) are NOT exposed, which is crucial behavioral context. It also mentions API version verification for listed fields.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second provides field detail and a critical limitation. No filler or redundancy; front-loaded with the main action.

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 parameterless list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It explains the return type, example fields, and a key data limitation, leaving no ambiguity for agent selection.

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?

With no parameters (schema empty, coverage 100%), the description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline 4 is appropriate as the description is not required to compensate.

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 explicitly states 'List all UniFi Identity (ULP) users' with a specific verb and resource. The addition of 'Returns array' and field details distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'protect_get_ulp_user' or 'protect_list_users'.

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 listing all ULP users but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'protect_get_ulp_user' for single users. No exclusions or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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