get_protocol_shell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states 'Returns a Protocol Shell' but does not disclose side effects, error behavior (e.g., if name not found), or whether the operation is read-only. The lack of behavioral details is a significant 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 concise with a single sentence and a bullet list for arguments. It is well-structured and easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more concise by removing redundancy with the parameter definitions.

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 absence of annotations and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a Protocol Shell is, how it relates to siblings, or what the return value contains (despite an output schema, its content is not described). The agent lacks complete context to use the tool effectively.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds meaning: 'name' can be a predefined template name or a custom name; 'intent' is optional for custom shells. However, it lacks format constraints or examples beyond 'reasoning.systematic', and does not clarify how the tool differentiates between a template name and a custom name.

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 'Returns a Protocol Shell' and distinguishes between returning a pre-defined template or a blank shell. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like get_cell_protocol or get_technique_guide, which may also return protocol-related structures.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions custom vs. pre-defined templates, but lacks context for prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the parameter descriptions.

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