pm_protocol_hierarchy

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

With no annotations provided, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits like read-only operation or resource requirements. It only states the output type, omitting whether the tool modifies state, requires permissions, or has side effects. The tshark reference hints at a read operation, but this is not explicit.

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, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not include common elements like a brief introduction, parameter details, or output description. While not verbose, 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 the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description should at minimum clarify the input requirement and the nature of the output. It fails to do so, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool reliably. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 coverage is 0% and there is one required parameter 'file_path'. The description does not explain what file_path should be (e.g., path to a pcap file), its expected format, or constraints. Without this, the agent cannot correctly invoke the tool.

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 identifies the tool's output as a 'Protocol distribution tree from tshark -z io,phs.' This gives a specific resource but lacks a clear verb (e.g., 'Generates' or 'Displays') and assumes knowledge of tshark. It differentiates from sibling tools like pm_conversations or pm_endpoints by its unique focus, but the purpose is not immediately obvious to an AI agent.

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_io_stats or pm_filter_packets. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a valid pcap file) or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent without decision support.

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