shodan-list-protocols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that an API key is required and describes the return value ('ProtocolsResult with protocol names and descriptions'). This is important behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not discuss potential errors or rate limits.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, a second sentence elaborates on the return value, and a third notes the API key requirement. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler.

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?

This is a simple list tool with a rich output schema and a fully documented input schema. The description adds the key prerequisite (API key) and specifies the return type, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly without additional 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single `timeout` parameter, including its default and constraints. The description adds no extra parameter context, so the baseline score 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?

The description starts with a specific verb+resource: 'List protocols available for on-demand Shodan scanning.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling list tools like shodan-list-ports and shodan-list-facets by focusing on protocols for on-demand scanning.

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 description provides clear context for use ('protocols that can be used when launching an on-demand scan') and states a prerequisite ('Requires a Shodan API key'). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is unambiguous for a listing tool.

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