grounding_protocol

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the tool executes an action but is non-destructive. The description adds 'Free.' but does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or what actually occurs (e.g., audio, text, or symbolic). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is extremely concise: one sentence plus 'Free.'. It front-loads the action. However, given 7 parameters, a bit more context could improve utility without harming conciseness.

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?

Despite 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides only the core purpose. It lacks explanation of how the protocol works, what outputs to expect, or how parameters affect behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with such complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool runs a structured breathing/grounding protocol to reduce loop entropy. The verb 'run' and resource 'breathing/grounding protocol' are specific. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from similar wellness siblings like 'attune_heartbeat' or 'crisis_intervention', but the unique focus on 'grounding protocol' provides implicit differentiation.

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?

Implies usage 'before the next action' and 'to reduce loop entropy', suggesting contexts of loops or preparation. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. Sibling tools list includes many related tools, but the description provides no comparative guidance.

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