get_protect_application_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It declares the operation is read-only and uses a GET via Fabric proxy, which is valuable. But it doesn't mention permissions, error conditions, or response details beyond what the output schema provides.

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?

Three tight sentences: the operation and endpoint, the reported metadata and purpose, and the host parameter format. No fluff, every sentence earns its place, and the structure is logical.

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 simple metadata retrieval tool with one well-documented parameter and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lacks notes on authorization or potential errors, but these are minor for a read-only GET. The 'authoritative check' phrasing gives essential context.

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 0%, so the description must provide parameter meaning. It does so explicitly: 'host: console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)', giving an agent all needed information to format the parameter correctly.

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 identifies the specific verb 'Get', the resource 'Protect application metadata', and the endpoint. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating it reports version and Integration-API capabilities as the authoritative check for extended Protect families.

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 provides a clear use case: checking which extended Protect families the console supports, and labels itself as 'the authoritative check'. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though the context makes the purpose obvious.

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