protocol_enable_disable

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that enabling/disabling protocols modifies analysis behavior, whether the tool is destructive, or what the output contains. No details on side effects or permissions.

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 concise (one sentence) but severely under-specified. It lacks critical information, making it an example of brevity over completeness. Every word should add value, but here it adds almost none.

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 four parameters, an output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is grossly incomplete. It provides no information about return values, behavior, or how to use parameters, leaving the agent with essentially no useful 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 0%. The description does not mention any of the four parameters (capture_path, enable, disable, limit), leaving the agent to infer their meaning solely from names and types. This is insufficient.

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 'Analyze with selected protocols enabled or disabled.' is vague and only slightly expands on the tool name. It does not specify what kind of analysis is performed or what the output is, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like heuristic_enable_disable or filter_validate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions under which this tool should be preferred over siblings.

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