list_viewers

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic list action and parameter format; it does not mention pagination, permissions, error behavior, or what happens if the host is invalid. This is a minimal description for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 exceptionally concise, with a single-sentence functional summary followed by a direct parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value, and the core action is front-loaded.

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 (one parameter, list operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials. However, it lacks any usage context or warning about when not to use it, and the absence of behavioral details makes it less complete than ideal. It is adequate but minimal.

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 specifies 'host' as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by explaining the accepted formats: console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format). This gives the agent the exact syntax needed to invoke the tool 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 states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('all viewers on a Protect console'), which precisely identifies the operation. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_viewer (single viewer) and update_viewer (modifying a viewer).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_viewer or list_liveviews. While the name implies a listing operation, there is no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent without routing cues.

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