get_protocols

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a list with type and description, which implies a read-only operation, but does not mention potential behavior such as pagination, rate limits, or whether the list is exhaustive. This is adequate for a simple listing tool but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('List all') and the resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains the purpose, the filter parameter, and the output fields. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but given the simplicity, those are likely not critical. It could be improved by explicitly noting the absence of side effects or clarifying that 'all' means no hidden pagination.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'type' parameter with a clear description and examples. The tool's description adds no extra parameter-specific semantic detail beyond mentioning that type is one of the output fields. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists all known Algorand protocols with their type and description, using the specific verb 'List all' and a clear resource. It distinguishes from singular get_protocol and detailed get_protocol_summary by emphasizing the enumeration aspect, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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: you use this tool when you want an overview of all available protocols, optionally filtered by type. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this over sibling tools like get_protocol or get_protocol_summary, nor does it provide exclusions.

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