list_speakers

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention pagination, authentication, or error behavior. The provided host format details are parameter semantics rather than tool behavior.

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 extremely concise yet informative: one sentence for the operation and one for the parameter. Every word adds value, and the essential host detail is front-loaded without unnecessary filler.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential parameter and action. However, it lacks any usage guidance or notes on behavior (e.g., read-only nature, proxy constraints) that would help an agent decide when to invoke it, leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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 schema only defines host as a string, but the description meaningfully expands it by explaining the accepted formats (console name, ID, or composite ID in MAC:numericId format). This is essential for correct invocation and fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 action ('List speakers on a Protect console') and includes the specific API endpoint (GET /v1/speakers via Fabric proxy), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like get_speaker or update_speaker.

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 provides the required host parameter format but does not give any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It is implied that the tool is for enumerating speakers, but no explicit usage context is provided.

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