Infer protocol fields

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the categories of regions to be inferred, but does not mention output format, whether the operation is read-only, any preconditions (e.g., equal-length samples), or limitations. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb. Every word contributes to meaning, with no redundant or ambiguous phrasing.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too brief to provide complete context. It does not explain the return value, any side effects, or sample requirements that would help an agent use the tool correctly. For a protocol inference tool with non-trivial behavior, 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?

The sole parameter samplesHex is not mentioned in the description. The schema provides type and constraints but the description does not add meaning such as expected hex format, length consistency, or how the parameter relates to the inference. With 0% schema description coverage, this gap is significant.

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 infers constant, variable, and variable-tail byte regions across repeated hex payloads. The verb 'Infer' and specific resource (byte regions) make the purpose understandable, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like proto_auto_detect.

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 phrase 'across repeated hex payloads' implies the tool is used to compare multiple hex strings, which is a usage condition. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as proto_auto_detect or proto_infer_state_machine, or when not to use it.

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