list_protocols

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists available protocol templates, which clearly implies a read-only listing action. However, it does not describe return format, sorting, or whether the list includes full details or just names. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no wasted text or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to understand the primary action. It could be enhanced by indicating what the returned list contains (e.g., names, IDs, or full template objects), but the core purpose is clear.

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 zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is not needed. The absence of parameters makes this score appropriate.

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 'Lista las plantillas de protocolos disponibles' uses a specific verb ('Lista' / list) and a clear resource ('plantillas de protocolos disponibles' / available protocol templates). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_patterns and list_presets by focusing on protocol templates.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as list_patterns or list_presets. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual clues. For a simple listing tool, this is a minor gap, but the dimension requires explicit guidance.

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