protocol_suggest_missing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool suggests missing steps, but does not explain how it determines 'missing', whether it requires an active session, if it has side effects, or what the response format looks like. This lack of detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary detail, making it highly concise and appropriately structured.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description should provide enough context for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to use it effectively. It only mentions 'suggest missing protocol steps' but does not describe the output format, return types, or any prerequisites, leaving the tool incomplete for practical use.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'currentContext', with a description of 'Current work context or situation'. The tool description mentions 'current activity', which aligns with the schema description but does not add further semantic meaning, such as examples, formatting, or allowed values.

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 action verb 'Suggest' and identifies the resource as 'missing protocol steps', making the tool's purpose clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like protocol_log_step and protocol_check_compliance, as it is focused on proactively suggesting gaps rather than logging or checking.

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 phrase 'based on current activity' gives an implicit context for when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like protocol_check_compliance. The description does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the usage scenario only implied.

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