proofpoint_people_get_vap

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the report returns ranked users, but does not disclose whether this is a read-only safe operation, whether it requires special permissions, or any rate limit implications. The lack of side-effect/safety information is a notable gap.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the tool's core purpose. Every sentence adds value without extra fluff.

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?

Despite missing annotations and output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and return value. The parameters are well-documented in the schema. However, the lack of explicit behavioral context (e.g., pagination expectations) prevents a perfect 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?

All three parameters have full schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 tool gets the Very Attacked People (VAP) report and explains what it returns (users most attacked, ranked by attack index). However, it does not directly compare against sibling tools like proofpoint_people_get_top_clickers, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'Useful for identifying high-risk users' provides clear context for when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose, making it only implied usage.

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