get_protocol_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is concise and agent-friendly and lists covered aspects, but it does not mention error behavior, return format, or prerequisites such as protocol existence. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with no filler. Every phrase adds value: the action, the target audience, the resource, and the content scope.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool returns and for what purpose. It lacks explicit return formatting, but the term 'summary' sets expectations well enough for tool selection.

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 100% and the single parameter protocolId is already well described with examples. The description adds no input-specific detail; its mention of purpose, contracts, and assets describes output, not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and identifies a clear resource (an agent-friendly summary of an Algorand protocol), while explicitly listing its contents (purpose, contracts, assets). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_protocol (likely full details) and get_protocol_contracts (specific contracts).

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 word 'summary' implies use for high-level overviews, but there is no explicit statement about when to choose this over get_protocol or get_protocol_contracts. No alternative tools are named or exclusions given, so guidance is minimal.

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