v9_protocol_a

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the hard runtime prerequisite (desktop app installed, opened, licence activated), the specific licence tiers accepted, the absence of side effects ('starts nothing'), and the exact failure mode `no_protocol_a_results`. That is the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

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 gating fact (requires the desktop app, output fields, read-only nature) is front-loaded, and every paragraph carries information. The install URL and 'open it and activate a licence' phrasing is slightly more verbose than needed, but it is not padding.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description compensates fully: it names the returned metrics, the error returned when the source file is missing, and all prerequisites an agent must verify before calling. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret this tool is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no argument surface for the description to clarify, and it correctly does not invent one.

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 (summarise) and an unambiguous resource (the batch scanner's saved regression check), and enumerates the exact quantities produced (n_total, n_strict, n_soft, n_cumul, pct_cumul, tolerance). It never names a sibling such as v9_get_run or v9_tail_log, so the differentiation is achieved by subject matter rather than explicit contrast.

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?

Gives clear operating context: it reads a file computed earlier, 'starts nothing', and needs the Stochastly app open with an Atelier or Portfolio licence. That tells an agent both when this tool is appropriate and when it is not (before the app/licence exists). No alternative tool is named for the same job, which keeps it short of a 5.

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