get_protocols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state what is returned and even the approximate size (~13KB), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly mention that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or describe the output format beyond being a markdown file.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core information: what is returned and what it contains. The second sentence gives the usage trigger and size, both of which earn their place.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with no parameters and no output schema, this description is complete. It identifies the file, summarizes its contents, enumerates coverage, and states when to load it. An agent has enough information to decide and invoke 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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden for the description to carry. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately avoids introducing any phantom parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Returns') and names the exact resource (core/01-PROTOCOLS.md), then lists the task types covered. It also signals differentiation from the sibling get_core_skill by saying 'beyond the core skill', so an agent can tell what makes this tool distinct.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Load this when the task requires detailed protocol steps beyond the core skill.' This tells the agent when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which keeps it just below a 5.

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