thryx_about

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is always available and requires no key, which is useful behavioral context. The tool is inherently read-only, and the overview description implies no side effects, adding meaningful transparency beyond the name.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with 'Protocol overview' and a list of contents, followed by availability and usage cue. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter tool without an output schema, the description fully covers what it returns (Diamond address, chain, agent surfaces, doc links), how it behaves (always available, no key), and when to use it (first connection). It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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, so the description needs no parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not add irrelevant param info while still clarifying the tool's purpose.

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 identifies the tool as a protocol overview, specifying the exact content (Diamond address, chain, agent surfaces, doc links). It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the starting point for new agents, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Start here when an agent first connects.' It also notes 'Always available, no key required,' which is a strong usage condition. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is clear enough for selection among siblings.

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