zcode_protocol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: disabled by default, disabled outright via ZCODE_MCP_DISABLE_PROTOCOL=1, allowlist-restricted, mutating methods gated behind ZCODE_MCP_PROTOCOL_ALLOW_MUTATIONS=1, and results always flagged unreliable due to no read-back or schema guarantee. That is a rich disclosure of gating, side-effect risk, and output trustworthiness.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the identity ('Escape hatch') is front-loaded ahead of the enablement constraints. The information is dense but every clause earns its place; only slight compression cost keeps it off a 5.

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?

The gating and reliability story is complete, but the schema defines two distinct modes ('methods' to enumerate vs 'call' to invoke with method/params) and the description never explains this split or what a call returns. For a raw-protocol tool with no output schema and no annotations, that operational gap is meaningful.

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 description coverage is reported at 100%, so the structured fields already document the inputs and the baseline is 3. The description adds only indirect context ('mutating methods', no schema guarantee) and does not explain the action/method/params/workspace semantics beyond what the schema encodes.

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 opening phrase 'Escape hatch: raw ZCode Protocol access' states a specific verb-and-resource relationship and immediately distinguishes this from the high-level zcode_* siblings (status, session, chat, etc.). An agent knows this is the unmediated low-level channel rather than another curated wrapper.

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?

Calling it an 'escape hatch' implies its when-to-use condition (raw protocol needs the curated tools don't cover) and it clarifies the prerequisites for enablement. It stops short of explicitly telling the agent to prefer the wrapping tools first, so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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