getProtocolInfo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait — 'static — which tells the agent the data is stable reference material, not live state. It adds context about what the response contains, but says nothing about response format, payload size (the full AGENTS.md guide may be large), or failure behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence opens with the core action and object, then uses a clean colon-delimited list to enumerate contents. Every component earns its place with no filler or redundancy. The structure makes the scope instantly scannable.

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 0-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description thoroughly covers what the agent will receive, enumerating both high-level categories (network info, contract addresses, supported assets) and the nested integration guide contents (emission schedule, eligibility, gas requirements, strategy context). Minor gaps are the lack of return format or error-behavior disclosure, but nothing an agent critically needs to invoke a no-arg getter is missing.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies and the description needs no parameter detail. The description is fully compatible with the empty schema and adds nothing that could confuse parameter handling.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Returns static metadata about Kaskad Protocol,' followed by a precise enumeration of contents (network info, contract addresses, supported assets, documentation links, AGENTS.md guide). This content scope clearly distinguishes it from all 16 siblings, which target markets, positions, rewards, and governance data. An agent reading this could not confuse it with getMarkets or getPosition.

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 usage context is implied through the content list — the AGENTS.md integration guide, eligibility rules, gas requirements, and strategy context strongly suggest this is meant to be fetched before interacting with the protocol. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the call order.

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