Performed full review of ef093c5...d2df7e5

Analysis

1. The PR only addresses documentation improvements but doesn't appear to address any actual architectural issues in the codebase.
2. While explicitly documenting the protocol parameter is helpful, the PR doesn't validate whether the code itself properly handles cases where users might omit the protocol parameter.
3. The documentation update implies a required parameter, but it's unclear if the underlying implementation enforces this requirement or gracefully handles missing protocols.

^{1 files reviewed | 0 comments | Review on Mesa | Edit Reviewer Settings}