protocol_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns the full protocol document and enumerates its sections, which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention auth, error behavior, or side effects, but the read-only semantics of 'Get' are straightforward.

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?

Two concise overview sentences plus a short Args block; every sentence adds value. No redundant or filler text.

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 tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to document return structure. The provided context covers purpose, argument semantics, and expected response contents.

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 schema provides only 'name' as a string with no description; the description compensates by giving concrete examples ('agent-deployment', 'incident-response') and clarifying that it is a protocol name. This is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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?

Description clearly identifies a get operation for a named security protocol, enumerating document contents (prerequisites, steps, verification, rollback). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like checklist_get by specifying what a protocol document contains.

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 implies usage when a protocol document is needed by name, but it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or specify when not to use. No alternative tools are mentioned, so guidance is only implicit.

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