detect_network_protocols

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the tool is safe. The description adds that it 'detects and reports' but does not elaborate on behavior beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction with annotations.

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 exceptionally concise: a single sentence for purpose followed by three bullet-point parameter definitions. Every sentence is necessary; no redundancy or fluff. The main action is front-loaded.

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's simplicity and the presence of annotations (safe, idempotent), the description adequately covers input but lacks details about output format (e.g., what 'report' means). It does not specify whether the tool returns a list of protocol names or a structured object, leaving room for ambiguity.

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%, so the description carries the burden. It provides clear, concise semantics for each parameter: filepath as path to PCAP, interface for live capture, duration for capture length. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/default alone, though it omits details like file format or interface naming conventions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Detect and report network protocols in use.' The verb ('detect and report') and resource ('network protocols') are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools that focus on analyzing particular protocols (e.g., analyze_dns_traffic) or other tasks (e.g., capture_live_packets).

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 explains that the tool accepts either a PCAP file or a live capture interface, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not specify that this tool is for broad protocol detection while sibling tools like analyze_http_traffic are for deep inspection of a specific protocol.

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