Tez List Protocols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It indicates a read-only operation (listing) and implies no side effects, but it does not mention any potential limitations such as pagination, size limits, or whether the list is exhaustive. The scope is implied but not explicitly disclosed.

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 conveys all essential information without redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action and object.

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 the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema revealed), the description is complete. It specifies the exact scope and ordering. There is no missing context that would confuse an agent.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters and none exist. The tool name and description fully cover what is needed to invoke it.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Tezos protocol amendments'), and adds the qualifier 'chronological order' which distinguishes it from sibling tools that search or analyze. It is immediately obvious what the tool does and how it differs from the other listed tools.

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 when a complete enumeration is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like tez_get_current_protocol or tez_search_protocol. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over a search tool, though the purpose is fairly intuitive.

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