pm_tcp_anomalies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It says 'Count and sample' but does not indicate whether it modifies data, requires special permissions, or has any side effects. The read-only nature is unclear.

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?

Extremely concise (one sentence) but omits essential parameter information. While no fluff, it fails to provide necessary details beyond the core function.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool with 3 undocumented parameters. It lacks instructions on required file_path, optional filter, and sample_limit, making it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 the description does not mention parameters (file_path, display_filter, sample_limit) at all. The AI agent must guess their meaning and usage.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Count and sample' and the specific resource 'TCP anomalies', listing examples (retrans, dup ACK, zero window, OOO, RST), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover other analysis areas.

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 vs. alternatives like pm_latency_summary or pm_troubleshoot_flow. Does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where it is or is not appropriate.

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