tteop_describe_protocol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' makes the read-only nature clear, and the enumerated metadata content does not suggest side effects or mutations. It could add explicit statements about side-effect freeness or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter metadata getter the transparency is adequate.

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, well-structured sentence front-loads the core purpose and then uses a colon-delimited list to enumerate the exact metadata contents. Every element earns its place with no redundant wording.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must communicate return values; it does so comprehensively by listing version, supported versions, privacy modes, provenance levels, forbidden fields, metric definitions, and schema/spec URLs. For a zero-parameter read-only metadata tool, no critical information 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 has no parameters, and the schema confirms an empty properties object. The description adds value by specifying the resolved metadata fields, which is the only meaningful semantic content an agent needs for this no-argument tool.

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 clearly defined resource ('TTEOP protocol metadata') and enumerates the exact contents returned. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like tteop_validate_envelope or tteop_build_envelope.

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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving protocol definitions rather than validating, building, or running conformance checks. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so some inference is left to the agent.

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