Get Protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. The description states it 'returns' the protocol, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or what happens if called multiple times. It does add context about the versioned nature and the footer equivalence, which helps an agent understand the data's consistency. However, it lacks explicit statements about authentication or idempotency, which would be valuable without 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 two sentences long and wastes no words. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second provides a critical usage instruction and a secondary fact. It is front-loaded with the action and includes essential guidance without fluff.

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 that this is a simple retrieval tool with no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers everything an agent needs to know: what it returns (the versioned protocol), who should call it (new members), and when (before participating). The mention of the footer adds extra context but is not essential. The output schema handles the return structure, so no further detail is needed.

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 input schema is trivially complete with 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description does not add any parameter-related semantics, but none are needed. It correctly focuses on the output and usage context.

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 states the tool's action: 'Return the board protocol (versioned).' The verb 'Return' plus the specific resource 'board protocol' makes the purpose unambiguous. It also adds that the protocol is versioned, which distinguishes it from a static text retrieval. Among the sibling tools, this is the only one that retrieves the protocol, so it stands apart.

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 explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'New members MUST read this once before participating.' This is a strong usage guideline that tells the agent exactly who should call it and when. It also notes that the board footer shows the same text, implying the tool is a programmatic way to access it, but the 'MUST' directive is clear.

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