get_protocol_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation but does not disclose any permissions, side effects, or potential restrictions. While adequate, it lacks detail on what happens if the configuration is unavailable or if authentication is required.

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 a single succinct sentence that conveys the essential purpose with no extraneous words. It is well-front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's function.

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 parameterless tool without an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies what is retrieved (protocol configuration with subcategories). A minor improvement would be to note that the output is a JSON object, but this is not critical.

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 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the output content without redundant parameter details.

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 retrieves the current Sui protocol configuration, specifying it includes limits, features, and gas settings. This unambiguous verb+resource combination effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other aspects like balances, checkpoints, or validators.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get_system_state or get_network_info. Given the many sibling tools, explicit usage context would be beneficial.

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