shodan_protocols

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

The description explains it returns a dictionary with protocol name and description, plus an example. With no annotations, this provides sufficient behavioral context for a read-only info tool, though lacks error or rate limit details.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences and an example. No fluff, every part adds value. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 zero parameters, an output schema implied by the return description, and a simple task, the description is fully complete. An agent can confidently invoke this tool.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info but is not required. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 it returns a list of supported protocols for Shodan's on-demand scanning API. This specific verb+resource definition distinguishes it from sibling tools like shodan_host or shodan_search.

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?

Usage context is implied (when you need to know supported protocols), but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not explicit.

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