list_advanced_custom_protocols

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation, so the description's burden is lowered. The description adds the L7 scope constraint, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral characteristics (e.g., pagination, sorting, or return format). This is adequate but not rich, matching the baseline of a simple read-only list tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently and contains no fluff or repetition.

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 simple (zero params, read-only, output schema exists), so the description is mostly sufficient. However, the close sibling 'list_custom_protocols' creates ambiguity that the description does not address, and it lacks any contextual detail about what makes these protocols 'advanced' or how they differ from other list tools.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics since there are none, and the schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 the action ('List') and the resource ('advanced custom protocols') with an L7 scope qualifier. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the closely named sibling tool 'list_custom_protocols', which is implied by the name but not stated in the description.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_custom_protocols or list_protocol_groups. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without sufficient context for tool selection.

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