get_protocol_summary

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. While the verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state that it is safe, non-mutating, or free of side effects. It also does not mention any authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, leaving these aspects opaque.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and contents. Every word contributes meaningful information, with no repetition or filler, making it optimally concise and easy to scan.

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 tool has only one required parameter and no output schema, so the description partially compensates by naming the types of information returned (purpose, contracts, assets). However, it lacks details about the return format, potential errors, or any prerequisites, which would make it more complete for an agent. Given the tool's simplicity, the omission is not severe, but there is room for improvement.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter protocolId with a helpful example ('tinyman, folks-finance'), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description adds general context that the summary includes purpose, contracts, and assets, but it does not elaborate on the parameter itself beyond what the schema states.

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') with a clear resource ('concise agent-friendly summary of an Algorand protocol') and specifies the scope ('including its purpose, contracts, and assets'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_protocol or get_protocol_contracts by emphasizing 'concise agent-friendly' and the summary nature.

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 description implies the tool is for obtaining a concise, agent-friendly overview, which suggests a use case distinct from more detailed or specific sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_protocol or get_protocol_contracts, nor does it provide any exclusions or conditions.

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