protect_list_users

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: the return type (array), exact fields returned (id, modelKey, etc.), and explicitly states what is NOT exposed (roles, permissions, etc.). This goes beyond annotations.

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 two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose and scope. Every sentence provides necessary information.

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 (no parameters), and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, behavior, and return fields. It explicitly lists included fields and notable exclusions, making it complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. Baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter information because none are needed. No deduction necessary.

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 all Protect users, filtered by API key permissions. The verb 'list' and resource 'users' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like protect_get_user (singular) and protect_list_ulp_users (different user type).

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 using this tool to get a list of users visible to the API key. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but the sibling context provides differentiation. A slight gap in explicit exclusion criteria.

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