get_capture_statistics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the computation method (Capinfos totals plus TShark pass), the loaded-capture precondition, and the return contents. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'calculate' and 'assess' strongly imply no mutation.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence contributes useful context. The Args and Returns sections are clean and avoid redundancy with the schema.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only statistics tool, the description covers the purpose, method, precondition, and return values. It does not discuss error conditions or performance implications of the TShark pass, but these are not critical 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?

The schema provides only a bare 'capture_id' string, but the description adds meaning by stating it must be the ID of a currently loaded capture. This is the key semantic needed to call the tool correctly.

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 the tool computes aggregate traffic rates and packet-size statistics, with a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_summary or get_capture_metadata, though the aggregate/statistics focus helps.

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?

It provides explicit context for when to use it: to assess capture volume, duration, average traffic rate, and packet-size metrics. It also notes the prerequisite that the capture must be currently loaded, but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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