get_agent_protocol

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the content scope of the protocol and the fact that the same text is available via resource and prompt. It does not describe the return format explicitly, but for a zero-parameter static read that gap is minor.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and content scope, followed by the alternative-access note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only protocol tool with full annotations, the description is nearly complete: it says what protocol areas are covered and where else the text lives. It could be slightly richer by stating the return format (plain text) or whether the protocol is versioned, but no critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero params is 4, and nothing in the description creates ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ("Read") and resource ("the current HellenicStar agent protocol") and enumerates the protocol's subject matter, making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from meta-siblings like get_capabilities or recommend_workflow, which keeps it from a 5.

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 mentions that the same text is available as an MCP resource and prompt, which signals alternatives, but it gives no condition for choosing this tool over those alternatives or over sibling meta-tools. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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