list_protocols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'Inventory only', which clearly tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating operation. This exceeds what the tool name alone would convey and is especially valuable for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 three short sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds value: the core purpose, the inventory-only scope, the sibling distinction, and the read-only safety signal. It is front-loaded with the purpose and remains compact.

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 zero-parameter, no-side-effect listing tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage boundary, alternative tool, and safety. There is no missing information that an agent would need to decide to invoke or actually invoke this tool.

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 and the schema already documents this (100% coverage), so the description needs no parameter details. Per the zero-parameter baseline, this is adequate; no additional meaning is required.

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 and object: 'List protocol families this kernel can govern.' It clearly identifies the resource type and scope, and immediately distinguishes itself from list_mounted_servers by noting that mounted servers are covered by the sibling tool. An agent can confidently select this tool for protocol-family inventory without opening the schema.

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?

'Inventory only' tells the agent when this tool is appropriate, and 'Mounted servers are list_mounted_servers' explicitly routes a related but distinct use case to the correct sibling. This provides actionable selection guidance rather than leaving the agent to infer it.

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