get_network_protocol

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

With no annotations provided, the description relies on the verb 'Get' to signal a read-only operation, which is clear. However, it doesn't add extra behavioral context such as requiring specific permissions, potential errors, or that it doesn't modify settings. The description focuses on output content rather than behavioral traits.

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 front-loads the primary action and follows with a precise list of what it returns. Every word earns its place, and it avoids unnecessary filler.

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 simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the exact information returned (protocols and port numbers) and implies the input via the schema. It doesn't detail output format or error conditions, but these are not critical for such a straightforward tool.

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 covers 100% of the parameter (manager_id) with a clear description and example, so the description doesn't need to add parameter-specific semantics. The description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable per the baseline.

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 'Get BMC network protocol settings' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the exact protocols covered (IPMI, SSH, HTTPS, SNMP, Telnet) plus port numbers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_manager or get_system, which have broader or different scopes.

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 for retrieving network protocol configuration, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. There is no mention of when this tool is preferred over get_manager or other system tools, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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