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 for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the high-level listing behavior, but does not mention pagination, rate limits, authentication, output format, or any edge cases. This is minimal transparency for an unannotated tool.

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 communicates the essential purpose with zero filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 is simple with only one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose and result breadth sufficiently for straightforward listing, though it could benefit from clarifying whether 'description' refers to the protocol's description text or the tool's own output field.

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 100% (the 'type' parameter is well-described with examples). The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, but the baseline for high coverage applies. It does correctly imply the filter is optional via 'List all'.

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 ('List') with a clear resource ('all known Voi ecosystem protocols') and outcome ('with type and description'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_protocol' by emphasizing 'all', though it does not explicitly name the singular alternative.

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 'List all' implies usage when a complete inventory of protocols is needed, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_protocol_summary or get_protocol_contracts, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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