Protocol List

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' and the absence of parameters transparently signal a non-mutating discovery call, but the description does not explicitly state side-effect freedom, potential I/O latency, or failure behavior. This is adequate for a parameterless read-only tool, but not rich.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and lists all output categories. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary context.

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 a parameterless schema, a declared output schema, and a simple enumeration purpose, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It names every category the listing covers, and the output schema handles return-value expectations.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the enumerated output categories rather than parameter details, since there are no parameters to explain.

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 opens with the verb 'List' and names a concrete resource set: instrument backends, capture adapters, bus decoders, upper decoders, profiles, and sinks. This clearly separates it from action-oriented siblings like bus_decode or capture_open. It could name protocol_roles explicitly, but the resource list is specific enough.

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 implies a discovery/enumeration use case but never states when to call this tool versus alternatives. It gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with related siblings such as protocol_roles, which might also surface protocol-related information. An agent must infer the intended context from the word 'List' alone.

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