radiant_validate_protocols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Validate/check' implies a non-mutating operation, but the description does not state the return shape (e.g., boolean vs. error details) or whether it consults chain state. This is a moderate gap, not a contradiction.

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?

A single sentence with a helpful parenthetical clarification. The core action is front-loaded and there is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 single-parameter validation tool, the purpose and parameter are adequately covered. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not state what a successful or failed validation returns, leaving some ambiguity about how to interpret the result.

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 already provides 100% coverage, describing protocols as an array of protocol IDs to validate. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Validate') on a specific resource ('a Glyph protocol combination') and clarifies the intent with 'check if protocol IDs can be used together'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like parse_glyph_envelope and get_protocol_info, which parse or retrieve rather than validate combinations.

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 makes the use case explicit: use it when you need to determine whether a set of protocol IDs is compatible. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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