Call Protocol Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real safety boundary ('allowlisted'), but says nothing about side effects (an arbitrary pass-through 'arguments' object could be a mutation), auth requirements, or timeout behavior despite exposing timeoutMs.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the routing caveat second. Every clause earns its place.

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 generic dispatcher taking an opaque nested 'arguments' object with no output schema, the description is thin: it doesn't explain that valid tool names/arguments vary per protocol nor hint at return shape or error behavior. Adequate as a minimal pointer to the raw layer, but not complete for the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents tool, protocol, arguments, and timeoutMs, including the current 'veil' protocol id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Call a raw allowlisted protocol tool') and scopes it ('raw allowlisted'), which distinguishes it from the many first-class veil_* wrappers named in the description. It signals the generic-dispatcher role without restating the title.

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?

'Prefer first-class WalletChan wrappers when available' is an explicit routing rule that tells the agent to fall back here only when no dedicated wrapper exists, which is meaningful given the large sibling set of veil_* tools. It lacks detail on when this is mandatory (e.g., unnamed/tool not yet wrapped) but the exclusion is clear.

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