resolve_protocol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the return value has three parts (core bodies, on-demand index, size), which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, error conditions, prerequisites, or whether the operation is read-only. The disclosure is moderate but incomplete.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; each phrase adds information about the return value. It is compact and to the point, though the term 'composed protocol' is unexplained, which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

The description is too thin for the information an agent needs: the parameter's meaning, the concept of 'composed protocol', when to use this tool versus siblings, and behavior for invalid projects are all missing. An output schema exists but does not compensate for the overall lack of guidance and zero schema parameter coverage.

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% for the 'project' parameter, and the description only repeats the word 'project' without clarifying whether it expects an ID, name, path, or another identifier. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.

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 specific verb, 'Return', identifies the resource as 'composed protocol for a project', and lists the output components (core bodies, on-demand index, size). It is clear about the tool's primary purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_project or list_on_demand.

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?

Usage context is only implied: if you need a composed protocol, use this tool. There is no mention of alternatives, when not to use it, or required conditions such as an existing project, so guidance is minimal beyond the stated purpose.

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