get_protection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so well by explicitly stating the operation is read-only and enumerating what information is returned. It does not mention error cases or authorization requirements, but for a simple getter this is a minor gap.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then gives the output details, sibling routing, and read-only safety note in an efficient order. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the output schema exists, the description appropriately focuses on behavior and selection criteria. It covers the operation's purpose, returns, safety profile, and alternatives. A small gap remains regarding file_path semantics and failure conditions, but the description is otherwise complete for a simple getter.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented file_path parameter, but it does not explain the parameter's format, meaning, or required document context. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description focuses entirely on return values rather than input semantics.

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 a specific verb and resource: retrieving the current document protection state, and enumerates the exact attributes returned (mode, password set, formatting restrictions). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling set_document_protection and remove_document_protection by positioning itself as the read counterpart.

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 routes the agent to the correct sibling for write operations: 'Use set_document_protection to enable and remove_document_protection to disable.' This gives clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance beyond merely describing the tool.

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