explain_actor_protocol

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

Annotation_contradiction false, but no annotations are present. The description mentions what content will be described, but does not explicitly state side-effect safety, authorization, or failure modes. It is likely a read-only explanation tool, but the description carries the full burden and does not explicitly confirm it.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. The colon followed by a concise list of the tool's output is good structure.

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 tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description still indicates the core return topics. It misses only optional context like error handling or what a descriptor; but those are arguably extraneous for the core usage, so it is largely complete.

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 already covers both parameters completely. The description adds the concept of protocol components, but it does not introduce parameter semantics, such as must be a valid .hird file or existing actor name, that are absent from the schema.

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 states a clear verb-object pair ('Describe an actor's protocol') and enumerates exactly what the protocol includes. It is easy to distinguish by topic from the sibling tools, but it does not explicitly call out how it relates to the other explanation tools.

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 does not give any guidance on when to choose this tool over its siblings, nor does it mention no prerequisites or error cases. An agent must simply infer from the title and description that this is for actor protocol explanation, but no sibling distinction is made.

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