get_protect_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and shows the HTTP method, making the safety profile clear. It does not describe error cases or authentication needs, but for a simple getter this is sufficient behavior disclosure.

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 compact, front-loaded with the purpose, and devotes each sentence to useful information. It avoids boilerplate and repetition, making every line valuable.

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?

The tool is simple, both parameters are documented with formats and provenance, and an output schema exists so return values do not need to be repeated. The description gives an agent everything needed to select and invoke 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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters on its own. It does: host accepts 'console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)', and user_id is marked REQUIRED with a clear provenance source in list_protect_users. This fully compensates for the empty schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair: 'Get one Protect user by id', reinforced by the explicit REST path 'GET /v1/users/{id}'. It clearly differentiates this from listing users and from sibling tools like get_ulp_user by naming the resource type 'Protect user'.

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 context is clear: call this when retrieving a single Protect user by its id. It also gives the important workflow hint that user_id should come from list_protect_users. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage is unmistakable.

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