radiant_get_protocol_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it clearly indicates a non-mutating lookup. However, it does not disclose any operational traits such as output representation, error behavior, or whether the results are static definitions or network-dependent.

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 states the action, scope, and returned fields without repetition or filler. Every element earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter informational call, the description covers the resource and content of the response. It is slightly incomplete because it does not describe the structure of 'valid combinations' or the conditions under which the tool might be unavailable, but overall it is sufficient for a low-complexity call.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage, so the baseline is high. The description still adds value by specifying exactly what the no-argument call returns, compensating for the absence of an output schema.

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') and resource ('all Glyph protocol types'), and enumerates the returned fields: IDs, names, descriptions, and valid combinations. This makes the tool's scope clear and distinguishable from a validation or chain-info tool.

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 retrieving protocol metadata and works with no arguments, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over related siblings such as radiant_validate_protocols or radiant_parse_glyph_envelope. There is no exclusion guidance or mention of alternatives.

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