protocol_config

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

The description only states the tool's general purpose but does not disclose behavioral traits such as destructiveness (reset could be destructive), authorization requirements, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to provide key behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 description is brief and leaves much context to the schema. Given the tool's complexity (nested config, three actions, no output schema), the description alone does not fully explain behavior or return values, though the schema mitigates this somewhat. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 'Manage protocol injection configuration for task and plan templates' clearly states the verb (Manage) and the resource (protocol injection configuration for templates). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which focus on task and plan operations.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or context for using get, set, or reset actions.

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