protocols_supported

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint:false), the description adds a risk level ('[READ][risk=low]'), clarifies that read/write authorization is the caller's decision, and discloses that every call is audited. It also explains the no-egress gate reporting behavior, adding significant context not present in annotations.

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 well-structured: a compact tag, a one-line summary, an explicit usage directive, a detailed list of contents, an essential server-posture note, and a return-dict sketch. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the front-loading ensures the core intent is immediately clear.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides a detailed return key structure. It also covers the no-egress gate and audit behavior, which are critical for an agent deciding whether to proceed. This is complete for a zero-parameter discovery 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?

With zero parameters, the schema provides full coverage. The description includes an example call ('protocols_supported()') to reinforce the no-argument usage. This meets the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as a 'capability map' with the specific verb 'discover', listing protocols, status, tools, and connection params. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing itself as the pre-choice discovery step ('Call this to discover what iaiops can do before choosing a protocol/tool').

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 explicit when-to-use context: 'before choosing a protocol/tool'. It also explains a specific benefit (learning about the no-egress gate) but does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternative tools. This is clear context without formal exclusions.

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