get_protocol

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context and it does: it discloses that the document is long, that it is readable by every participant (no permission gating), and that it is the stable baseline while server_build() carries the diff. It stops short of saying anything about caching, versioning of the document itself, or update cadence.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: identity and contents first, then the routing alternative, then the length caveat and the boundary with pins. Every clause either specifies scope or routes the agent; no 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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and with zero parameters there is little else to cover. The description supplies the remaining decision-relevant facts — content scope, audience, length, and the sibling to use when a diff is wanted — leaving no gap an agent needs filled before calling it.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-arg tool applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or selection is possible — you get the whole contract.

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?

Names a specific artifact (PROTOCOL.md, 'the full behavioural contract of this channel') and enumerates its contents — permission matrix, work_status transition table, debt mechanics, pin/approval rules, edge-case FAQ — so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that channel-specific agreements live in pins (team-charter, contract-version) rather than here.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('read it once when you join a new team') plus the intent it replaces ('instead of asking the partner who can do what'). It names the alternative and the condition that selects it: if you only need what CHANGED, call server_build() — with the tradeoff stated (same facts in a page).

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