get_protocol

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

With no annotations, description fully describes behavior: returns markdown from installed package, no side effects, specific parameter hint. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage, third adds exclusions and parameter hint. Very efficient.

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?

Covers all necessary aspects: return type, usage context, initial parameter value, limitations. Complete for a simple retrieval tool with no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with description for 'name' parameter. Description adds specific guidance: 'Pass name=\"entrypoint\" for the main protocol', slightly exceeding baseline.

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?

Clearly states 'Return packaged Agenda Intelligence protocol markdown' with specific verb and resource. Differentiates from sibling tools like audit_claims and validate_brief by specifying it returns protocol text, not analysis.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'when an agent needs the reasoning contract...' and what not to use for: 'does not analyze a question or validate user data.' Provides clear context for selection.

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