get_capture_analysis_stats

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without any side effects, limits, or operational behavior. It does not explain how 'coarse' numbers are produced or what happens with large capture_id sets, and the scan_limit parameter is absent from the text.

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 one focused sentence with no wasted words and front loads the core action. While it is terse, it is not bloated or redundant, which earns a score above average despite sacrificing details that might help.

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?

With five parameters, conditional requirements (capture_id vs recording_path depending on source), and no annotations, the description is far too thin to guide a correct call. An output schema exists, but the description still fails to cover the input dependencies and choice boundaries.

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 should compensate by explaining the five parameters. The only hint is 'live capture or saved recording', which loosely maps to source and capture_id/recording_path, but the roles of preset, capture_id, recording_path, and scan_limit are left unexplained, leaving agents guessing about required inputs.

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 names a specific action (return) and a clear resource (coarse traffic class counts) with an explicit scope ('live capture or saved recording'), which separates it from entry-level tools. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the core function is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over closely related siblings such as get_recording_snapshot, query_live_capture_entries, or group_capture_analysis. It also fails to mention prerequisites or the conditions under which live vs saved recordings should be used.

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