Idm Get Protocols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that layers are returned flattened with a `path`, that a `tcp_port` marks a connectable stream at `<gateway_host>:<tcp_port>`, that nesting can be arbitrary depth, and that new protocol types appear without notice. It stops short of stating read-only/safety or error behavior explicitly, but 'Show' plus the rich structural context covers most of what an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by compact domain context. Four sentences, each earning its place, though the middle exposition on layer types is slightly dense.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description usefully characterizes the compound stack structure and stream semantics. For a moderately complex domain object, this is nearly complete; the main missing piece is sibling differentiation and explicit read-only framing.

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%, so both `full` and `device` are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description does add value by explaining that output is flattened by default (implying what `full` reverses) and what `path`/`tcp_port` mean, but it does not explain parameter formats or syntax beyond the schema.

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 ('Show') and resource ('the protocol and stream stack of the port a device is attached to'), which is clear and concrete. However, it does not differentiate itself from the overlapping sibling idm_get_streams, so an agent must infer which one returns the stack versus the stream list.

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, and no named alternatives. With siblings like idm_get_streams, idm_get_structure, and idm_read_stream that plausibly overlap, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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