getAnalyticsProtocols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it retrieves statistics, with no disclosure of behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, or what happens if data is absent. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose. It is front-loaded and concise, though it could include slightly more detail without being verbose.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), return values need not be explained. The tool has 3 parameters, with 2 required; the description does not clarify parameter requirements, but the schema does. Overall, it is minimally complete for a tool of moderate complexity.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter described. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as how parameters interact or the format of the statistics. Baseline for high coverage is 3; no extra value is provided.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves statistics about DNS protocol usage, listing specific protocols (DoH, DoT, DoQ, UDP, TCP). The verb 'Retrieves' and resource 'statistics about DNS protocol usage' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling analytics tools that focus on other aspects like destinations or encryption.

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 usage for protocol-specific analytics, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling analytics tools (e.g., getAnalyticsDestinations, getAnalyticsEncryption), more context would help an agent choose correctly.

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