Tez Get Current Protocol

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or that the operation is read-only. Though 'Get' suggests a safe read, the description carries the full burden and omits any behavioral details beyond the return value.

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 with no unnecessary words. It clearly front-loads the verb and resource, making it easy to parse and act upon.

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 tool with no parameters and a simple output, the description fully specifies what is returned (name, number, features). It is complete and self-contained for the intended use case.

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 input schema has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% since there is nothing to document. With no parameters, the baseline score of 4 applies, and the description correctly implies no arguments are 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?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Get') and a specific resource ('current Tezos mainnet protocol') along with the exact data returned (name, number, features). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools which focus on searching, listing, or analyzing Tezos data.

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 implies usage by naming the exact resource retrieved, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when you need the current protocol rather than searching or listing protocols). No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned, so guidance is only implied.

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