Infer protocol state machine

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action and inputs but does not explain the output format, required message structure, limitations, or potential failures. The term 'deterministic state graph' is vague about what the result contains.

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 under-specified sentence. It is concise but not especially well-structured or informative; the phrase 'direction, protocol fingerprint, and payload prefix' is not directly tied to the schema, and the sentence lacks necessary detail for a tool with one complex array parameter.

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 tool's moderate complexity (inferring a state graph from messages), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits what the state graph looks like, how messages should be ordered, and any assumptions about the protocol. The tool likely needs more context for proper use.

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 schema defines a single 'messages' parameter with detailed fields (direction, timestamp, payloadHex), but the description does not mention this parameter or explain how to map the listed inputs (direction, protocol fingerprint, payload prefix) to the schema. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter semantics unclear.

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 'Infer' and identifies the resource as a 'deterministic state graph', with inputs listed (direction, protocol fingerprint, payload prefix). It distinguishes from sibling tools like proto_infer_fields and proto_visualize_state by focusing on state machine inference, though it could be more explicit about being a protocol state machine.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as proto_infer_fields or proto_auto_detect. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context hints, leaving the agent to guess based solely on the name.

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