Get function protos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description mostly repeats these ('idempotency=read-only', 'Safety: read-only') while adding a little genuine context: 'Requires: active-client' and 'cost=medium'. It adds marginal value beyond the 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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is padded with formulaic metadata tags (Phase, cost, idempotency, Capabilities, Produces, Safety) that largely duplicate the annotations and schema. The final sentence defers to tool-schema, so it consumes space without informing the call.

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 read-only, fully-documented 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it names the action, prerequisites, and safety profile. It nonetheless omits what 'nested proto debug info' returns and how it differs from the many proto/closure siblings, leaving an agent with a complete-but-unrouted definition.

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 the schema already documents query, maxProtos (default 30, budget), and threadContext. The description merely restates the signature ('{ query: string, maxProtos: any?, threadContext: number? }') without adding format, semantics, or examples beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Find a function by query and dump nested proto debug info.' An agent can tell it retrieves proto debug data. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like get-closure-protos, get-connection-protos, lookup-function, or scan-proto-functions, so selection between them is left to guesswork.

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 only usage constraint is the prerequisite 'Requires: active-client.' There is no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling proto/closure lookups, no when-not condition, and no alternative named. Phase/cost tags imply observation use but do not route the agent among alternatives.

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