pcap_protocols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (protocol breakdown by packet count and endpoint conversations) and the input file type, but does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or how it handles missing/malformed files. It does not contradict anything.

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 concise: three sentences plus a parameter definition and return summary. Each line adds value, no filler, and the structure is scannable with the 'Returns:' label.

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 one param and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage order, and return value. It does not mention potential errors, performance caveats, or explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, but the overall context is reasonably complete.

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 for pcap_path has no description (0% coverage), but the description compensates by specifying 'path to .pcap or .pcapng file', adding file format meaning that is not present in the schema. This is sufficient for a single-parameter 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get protocol hierarchy and conversation list for a PCAP' with a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies the purpose as providing an overview of the capture's contents and distinguishes itself from pcap_extract by positioning this as a preliminary step.

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 explicitly says 'Use this BEFORE pcap_extract to know what protocols to look for,' giving clear sequential guidance and naming a relevant alternative. However, it does not mention other siblings like tshark_query, so exclusion criteria are not fully comprehensive.

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