List Advanced Custom Protocols

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's burden is light. It adds the '(L7)' scope hint — useful context that the protocols are application-layer — but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or how advanced protocols relate to basic custom protocols.

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?

A single front-loaded phrase with zero filler. Nothing is redundant and the resource is stated immediately.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the structured fields cover most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is differentiation from the very similar 'list_custom_protocols' sibling, which the description leaves unaddressed.

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 the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to document beyond the resource itself, and the schema is fully described.

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?

States a clear verb ('列出') and resource ('高级自定义协议'), with the '(L7)' qualifier narrowing scope to layer-7 protocols. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'list_custom_protocols' — the difference between 'advanced' and plain custom protocols is never explained, so an agent cannot confidently choose between them.

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 guidance on when to call this versus 'list_custom_protocols', 'list_protocol_groups', or 'list_app_protocol_rules'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are given; usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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