llm_protocol_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions two methods ('curated fields or Wireshark registry discovery') but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what happens to existing data, or whether it modifies state. The 'or' is ambiguous—does it choose automatically or let the user decide?

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks critical detail. It is front-loaded with 'Summarize one protocol', but the remaining clause adds minimal value. The sentence could be expanded to include parameter hints or usage context without losing conciseness.

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 the presence of many sibling tools and an output schema, the description should explain when to use this generic summary versus protocol-specific ones. It also fails to describe what the output contains (though the output schema exists). The agent is left without enough context to select the tool appropriately.

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%, meaning the description must compensate for each parameter. It does not explain capture_path, protocol, or limit. The mention of 'curated fields or registry discovery' does not map to any parameter, leaving the agent without semantic context for correct invocation.

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 verb 'Summarize' and the resource 'one protocol', and mentions two methods: curated fields or Wireshark registry discovery. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like llm_dns_summary or llm_http_summary that also summarize specific protocols, leading to ambiguity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like protocol-specific summaries. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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