Get Protocol Control

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds nothing beyond that – no indication of whether the config might be empty, whether auth/privilege is required, or any other behavioral trait. With annotations lowering the bar, a 2 still reflects a near-total absence of added context.

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?

It is a single short front-loaded phrase with zero padding, so nothing is wasted. But at six characters it is under-specified rather than merely concise, so it earns a middling score rather than a high one.

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 is a parameterless read with an output schema, which carries much of the burden, so the description needn't explain return values. Still, it leaves the domain of 'protocol control' undefined relative to many similar config getters, so it is only minimally complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; per the baseline rule for 0 params this sits at 4. No parameter-related meaning is missing.

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 phrase '获取协议控制配置' states a verb (get) and a resource (protocol control configuration), so the operation type is unambiguous. However, it never clarifies what 'protocol control' covers, and in a sibling set containing list_protocol_groups, list_custom_protocols, and list_protocol_forwarding_rules the agent cannot tell what this specific configuration governs. Vague purpose, hence a 3.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. With dozens of protocol/forwarding/config siblings, the description provides no routing signal at all, which fits the 'no guidance' band.

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