pm_dhcp_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'stuck-pattern detection' but does not explain what this entails, whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or what side effects occur. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 sentence of 9 words, front-loading the key purpose. It is efficiently concise, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and 3 parameters, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the output (though an output schema exists), usage prerequisites, or the meaning of 'stuck-pattern detection'. The tool's full behavior is under-specified.

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%, yet the description only hints at the mac_address parameter via 'optional STA MAC'. The required file_path and sample_limit parameters are not described, leaving the agent without meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 'DHCP transaction analysis' as the specific verb+resource, and adds 'stuck-pattern detection (optional STA MAC)' which differentiates it from sibling tools like pm_dns_analysis or pm_tcp_anomalies.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pm_conversations or pm_troubleshoot_flow. The description implies DHCP focus but does not explicitly state usage context or exclusions.

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