list_protect_users

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'Read-only in the Integration API,' which is a useful safety signal, and mentions the Fabric proxy endpoint. However, it does not disclose pagination, result limits, permission requirements, or any error/failure behavior, leaving only partial transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: it front-loads the action and resource, then gives the endpoint and read-only status, and finishes with a clear parameter explanation. Every line adds information without redundancy or repetition of the schema.

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 single-parameter list operation, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, endpoint, read-only nature, and host parameter format, and an output schema exists to document return values. The only missing piece is guidance on when this is the right tool compared to sibling user-listing tools, which is already reflected in the usage_guidelines score.

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?

The input schema provides no description for the required host parameter (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining that host accepts a console name, ID, or composite ID in MAC:numericId format. For the single required parameter, this gives an agent concrete and actionable semantics.

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 a specific verb and resource, 'List Protect users', and augments this with the underlying endpoint 'GET /v1/users via Fabric proxy'. While this makes the primary action obvious, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools such as list_ulp_users or list_users, nor does it define what makes a user a '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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_protect_user, list_ulp_users, or list_users. The additional line about host describes the parameter, not the selection context. An agent is left to infer the right circumstances from the tool name alone.

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