llm_tcp_health

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose whether this tool is read-only, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or has performance implications. The nature of returning markers suggests read-only behavior, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 with no redundant information, achieving high conciseness. However, it could be expanded slightly to cover parameter semantics or usage context without becoming verbose.

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?

Despite having a simple interface (2 params, output schema exists), the description lacks essential details: meaning of capture_path, limit effect, and structure of the returned health markers. It is not complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain what 'capture_path' refers to (e.g., file path or live capture) or how 'limit' affects results (e.g., max number of events returned).

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 returns TCP stream health markers like retransmissions, resets, and zero-window events, making the purpose specific. It is distinct from sibling tools (e.g., stats_tcp, llm_tls_summary) due to its focus on health indicators rather than aggregate stats or other protocols.

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 (e.g., stats_tcp for TCP statistics, llm_tcp_summary if exists). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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