get_cell_protocol

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

With no annotations, the description only indicates it returns a template, implying a read-only operation. It does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or limitations, but the tool appears simple and safe.

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 short and to the point, with a clear sentence followed by parameter documentation. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description sufficiently covers its purpose and inputs. It is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description documents the parameter 'name' with its allowed values ('key_value, windowed, episodic'), adding meaning beyond the raw schema which has 0% 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 (returns), the resource (cell protocol template), and the purpose (describing memory behaviors). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying its focus on cell protocols for memory.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_molecular_template or get_protocol_shell. It lacks context for selection among sibling tools.

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