List protocol packages

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description still adds genuine behavioral context: reads one local file deterministically, missing/malformed registry is an error, empty list means no protocols, and results follow registry order. That is meaningful disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and most sentences earn their place. The closing warning about registry_search protocol hits restates the earlier exclusion and costs some density, keeping it just short of ideal.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but the description still covers the edge cases an agent needs: no-arg invocation, empty-result meaning, error on missing/malformed registry, and deterministic ordering. Complete for a zero-param read tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description confirms 'Takes no arguments', consistent with the empty schema. Nothing further is needed since there is no parameter surface to clarify.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ('List protocol packages') and even names the source of truth (desktop/src/core/registry.json) plus the exact fields returned (id, version, module count, categories). It explicitly contrasts itself with registry_search and pipeline_list, so an agent can distinguish it from all listed siblings.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('authoritative protocol package catalog') and when-not-to-use, naming both alternatives (registry_search for modules, pipeline_list for pipelines). It even preempts a likely mistake by warning that protocol hits from registry_search are not a substitute.

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