Detect protocol

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens with malformed or oversized inputs, or any side effects. The term 'bounded' hints at input limits but lacks specifics.

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 with no redundant content. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return values. While it lists classification categories, it does not specify whether the output is per sample, the format, or error behavior. For a simple tool this is a notable gap.

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 must compensate. It refers to 'bounded hex payload samples,' which roughly maps to the samplesHex parameter, but it does not add details about hex encoding (e.g., 0x prefix, delimiters) or what 'bounded' means (e.g., max string length). The description mostly restates the parameter name.

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 uses a specific verb ('classify') and identifies a clear resource ('bounded hex payload samples') with enumerated output categories (HTTP, HTTP/2, TLS, DNS, SSH, WebSocket, or unknown). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like binary_detect_format, which focuses on binary format detection.

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 when to use the tool (when you have hex payload samples to classify) and enumerates the target protocols, which serves as implicit selection criteria. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so guidance is only implied.

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