List Protocol Tools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain the output shape (raw tool list), whether the result is cached, whether it requires authentication, or if any side effects occur. For a discovery tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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 that efficiently states the tool's function without unnecessary words.

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 has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should do more to explain what 'raw tools' means, what the return value looks like, and any limitations. It is currently underspecified for an agent to invoke it confidently in context.

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% (the 'protocol' parameter is fully documented with its allowed value), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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+resource ('List raw tools exposed by a managed protocol integration'), which is clear enough. However, it does not differentiate itself from similar siblings in the list such as 'call_protocol_tool', 'list_protocols', or 'list_remote_mcp_tools', leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives. The agent must guess whether this is the right tool for discovering protocol capabilities versus related listing tools.

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