analyze_iec61850

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating the tool is safe. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating it scans the whole capture but returns only a bounded summary, and it is safe on high-rate SV streams. This provides valuable transparency without contradicting annotations.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose and output, while the second provides details on protocol checks and safety. Every part earns its place, with no redundant information.

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 complexity of IEC 61850 analysis and the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers input parameters, protocol-specific checks, output format, and safety considerations. Minor gaps exist in describing the exact return structure, but overall it is complete enough.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the protocol-specific checks (e.g., stNum/sqNum gaps for GOOSE), which is not present in the schema. This additional semantic information enhances understanding of the 'protocol' parameter.

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 analyzes an IEC 61850 capture for protocol health and returns a compact, worst-first OK/WARN/FAIL report per source. It specifies the verb 'analyze', the resource 'IEC 61850 capture', and the output format. This distinguishes it from siblings like decode_protocol or protocol_stats which have different focuses.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool by listing specific protocol health checks (GOOSE, SV, MMS) and their details. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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