get_protocol

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true; the description adds meaningful context beyond that: the resource is available to every participant, it is long, and it represents the full behavioural contract rather than channel-specific agreements. It also clarifies the boundary with pins and the relationship to server_build, aiding safe usage.

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 slightly longer than minimal, but each sentence earns its place: content enumeration, usage timing, boundary with pins, and an alternative with the condition for use. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the length warning ('It is long') is useful rather than 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?

Given zero parameters, an output schema, and annotations declaring the read-only nature, the description covers what the tool returns, who can use it, when to use it, and when to prefer the sibling server_build. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description has no parameter burden. Baseline 4 is appropriate because no parameter explanation is needed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get the full behavioural contract (PROTOCOL.md), and enumerates its contents (permission matrix, work_status transition table, debt mechanics, pin/approval rules, FAQ). It also distinguishes itself from pins and from server_build, so an agent can tell it apart from relevant siblings.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: read it once when joining a new team instead of asking the partner 'who can do what'. It also names the alternative server_build and the condition for choosing it (only need what CHANGED), plus an exclusion: channel-specific agreements live in pins, not here.

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