protocol_hierarchy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'statistics' implies a read-only operation, but it never explicitly states that it is non-destructive, what the output format is, or whether it has performance implications (e.g., large captures). The description adds little beyond the basic purpose.

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 extremely concise, using a single straightforward sentence. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it is also so terse that it omits potentially useful context; the structure is good but the content is minimal.

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 there is no output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter with zero schema description, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'protocol hierarchy statistics' actually include, how the output is structured, or any usage constraints. An agent would have to make many assumptions to invoke this tool correctly, making it inadequate for autonomous use.

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%, so the description must explain the 'capture' parameter. It says 'whole capture' which hints that the capture is a capture identifier, but it does not specify the expected format (e.g., ID, name, or path), whether it is required, or how it relates to other tools' capture parameters. The agent is left guessing about how to supply this value.

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 specific verb-resource pair: it provides protocol hierarchy statistics for the whole capture. It clearly identifies the resource (the capture) and the nature of the tool (statistics). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like io_stats or conversations, though the term 'protocol hierarchy' is distinctive enough that a well-equipped agent could infer separation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, suitable contexts, or exclusions. An agent receives no hint about whether to prefer this over packet_summary or conversations for a given analysis task.

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