d3p_protocol_info

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

No annotations provided. Description implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not disclose any potential side effects, data freshness, or authentication requirements. For a simple retrieval, the transparency is adequate but lacks depth.

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?

Single sentence, enumerates returned fields, zero wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and details.

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?

Given zero parameters and expected output described (base URL, manifest URL, payment mode, service count), the description is complete. Output schema exists but description aligns without needing to refer to it.

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?

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%). Baseline score applies as description adds no param-specific meaning beyond what schema already conveys—which is nothing. No additional context is needed.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves d3p protocol info, listing specific fields. It is distinct from sibling tools like d3p_list_services (which lists services) and d3p_discover (which likely discovers resources). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. While the zero-parameter nature makes usage straightforward, explicit context about its role (e.g., 'Use this to get static protocol configuration') is missing.

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