protocol_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. The word 'returns' indicates a read operation without side effects, but it does not disclose behavior on invalid inputs, required permissions, or output format. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple retrieval.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Devuelve'). No unnecessary words, appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has a simple signature (2 params, no output schema), but the description omits crucial details like the meaning of 'name' and the expected format of 'context'. While the schema fills in 'context' partially, the overall documentation is sufficient for basic use but lacks depth for edge cases.

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 schema describes 'context' as optional JSON, but 'name' lacks a description. The tool description does not explicitly map parameters to the action, relying on inference from the tool name and the 'placeholders' phrase. It partially compensates for schema coverage but leaves 'name' ambiguous.

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 clearly states the action: returning a protocol template with placeholders replaced. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_protocols and get_pattern, though it does not elaborate on the template's purpose or context.

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 versus alternatives such as get_pattern or list_protocols. It only states the action without contextual cues or exclusions.

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