protocols

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful behavioral detail by naming the fields returned (roles, params, streams, fields) for a named protocol, but says nothing about listing behavior, ordering, or cost when called without a name.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is good, but the telegraphic phrasing ("What can be decoded") and the embedded backtick reference make it read as a fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose. Nothing is wasted, but clarity suffers for the brevity.

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 one-optional-param, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers both modes and hints at the returned structure. It stops short of explaining what the top-level listing looks like or how the described fields relate to the `decode` workflow it references.

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 already 100% and the single parameter's schema description is thorough, so the baseline is a 3. The description nonetheless reinforces the semantics: a name selects a specific protocol to describe, while omitting it lists all, and it gives concrete example values (`axilite`, `frame`).

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 phrase "What can be decoded" only obliquely names the resource, and the actual verb (list/describe) is never stated; the second clause clarifies that it enumerates roles, params, streams and fields for a named protocol, which sharpens the intent. An agent can infer this is a discovery/descriptor tool, but the purpose is phrased cryptically rather than as a clear verb+resource pair.

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?

The "with a name … / none lists them all" construction implies the two usage modes (enumerate vs describe a single protocol) and the parenthetical points to `help decode` for further guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over `help`, `info`, or `find`, so routing is left to inference.

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