get_protocol_template

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

No annotations exist. The description explains the intent (prevent inconsistency) but does not describe actual behavior like what the tool returns or how it operates. It lacks typical behavioral disclosure.

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 verbose, includes emojis, bold formatting, and repetitive warnings. It is not concise and could be streamlined.

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?

Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description fails to specify what the tool actually provides (e.g., the template format). It is incomplete in explaining the tool's output or behavior.

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?

No parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description adds context about protocol importance but does not detail parameter semantics since there are none.

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 does not clearly state what the tool does. It focuses on preventing protocol inconsistency rather than explaining that it provides a template. The purpose is ambiguous; it reads more like a guideline than a tool.

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?

Provides some usage guidance: 'Use when: Starting multiplayer implementation, adding new interaction types.' However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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