io_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says what data is shown, not how the tool behaves. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what unit the traffic volume uses, how interval_s affects bucket boundaries, or what happens for an invalid capture.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, and the core concept is front-loaded. It sacrifices behavioral detail for brevity, but as far as conciseness goes it is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin to be fully actionable. An agent still needs to infer what 'capture' refers to, what the returned time series looks like, and how to interpret 'traffic volume'. The description covers the basic idea but not enough of the operational context.

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 description adds meaning for interval_s by clarifying it is the time interval in seconds, which is not in the schema beyond its integer type and default. However, the required capture parameter is not explained at all, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates for the parameters.

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 states a clear resource: traffic volume over time, bucketed by interval_s seconds. It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like packet_summary, conversations, and protocol_hierarchy, which address different analytical views. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'displays', so it stops short of a fully specific statement.

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?

The description implies this is the tool to use when traffic volume over time is needed, especially since interval_s controls the bucket width. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as packet_summary or conversations, leaving usage conditions to inference.

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