List the nested child functions of a connection's handler

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description is not obligated to restate safety. It still adds value by disclosing preconditions (requires getconnections and debug.getprotos, active-client, resolved-target) and failure behavior (clear { error } if dependencies are missing, no Lua Function, or index out of range). Minor redundancy in restating 'idempotency=read-only' and 'Safety: read-only'.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a strong opening sentence, and the return shape and error behavior follow. The trailing metadata block (Phase, cost, Requires, Capabilities, Produces, Safety, On failure) is partly boilerplate that duplicates annotations, keeping it from a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the return contract ({ Signal, Instance?, ConnectionIndex, Function, Protos, Count }), the per-proto descriptor fields, the error case, and all preconditions. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so each parameter (signalName, instancePath, threadContext, connectionIndex) is already fully documented in the schema, including defaults and bounds. The description only echoes the zero-based index selection and repeats the signature, adding no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource (enumerate nested proto functions inside the Lua handler bound to one connection) and distinguishes itself from siblings like get-connection-info, get-function-protos and scan-proto-functions by scoping to a single connection selected by index. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 explains the purpose ('maps out the sub-functions you may want to hook or inspect next'), states the connectionIndex must come from list-signal-connections, and lists prerequisites (getconnections, debug.getprotos). It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing at the closer alternatives such as get-function-protos or get-closure-protos.

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