SINT Protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Return'), implying non-destructive behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists all returned attributes without unnecessary words. Every element (verb, resource, attributes) earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers what the tool returns. However, it lacks output format details (e.g., structure of returned data) and behavioral context like error handling, which would be beneficial for full completeness despite the low complexity.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output semantics without redundant parameter info, earning a baseline score above minimum viable due to efficient handling of the parameter-less case.

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 the specific action ('Return') and the exact resource ('current operator interface state'), listing specific attributes like mode, listening/speaking flags, HUD panels, memory context size, and session ID. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'sint__status' (likely general status) and 'sint__interface_mode' (likely just mode) by specifying the comprehensive interface-focused state retrieval.

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 implies usage when needing interface state details, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sint__status' or 'sint__interface_mode'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts for invocation, leaving usage inferred rather than clearly defined.

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