list_protect_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it explicitly identifies the operation as a GET and discloses that the endpoint does not validate file_type, returning HTTP 200 with an empty list for unknown values. This warning is critical for an agent to interpret empty results correctly.

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 and front-loads the core action, then delivers parameter details and the critical validation caveat in a logical order. Every sentence adds distinct information, and the warning is placed directly with the parameter it affects.

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 two simple required parameters and an output schema, nothing needed to invoke this tool correctly is missing: host formatting, valid file_type values, failure behavior, and the exactness requirement. The description is self-sufficient for an agent.

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%, and the description fully compensates: host is explained as console name, ID, or MAC:numericId, and file_type is documented with the only two known values ('sounds' and 'images'). It also explains the consequence of passing an unrecognized value, which the bare schema could never convey.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('Protect device asset files'), and dimension ('of a given type'), making the operation unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_protect_file and list_protect_events without needing to inspect the schema.

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 purpose implies when to use this tool, but the description never names sibling alternatives or says when not to use it. It does provide operational guidance for the file_type parameter ('Pass a known category exactly'), which is useful but not alternative-selection guidance.

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