stats_conversations

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Return conversation statistics for a protocol.' It does not disclose behavioral aspects such as whether it consumes capture data, modifies state, or has rate limits.

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, but it is under-specified for a tool with two parameters and no annotation coverage. Conciseness should not come at the cost of essential information.

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 an output schema, the description fails to contextualize what kind of conversation statistics are returned (e.g., packets, bytes, endpoints). For a stats tool, this detail is critical for proper 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%, and the description adds no meaning to the two parameters. It does not explain 'capture_path' or 'protocol' beyond what the schema already shows (e.g., default TCP, required capture_path).

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 specifies the verb 'Return' and resource 'conversation statistics for a protocol,' making the tool's function understandable. However, it does not differentiate from numerous sibling stats tools (e.g., stats_tcp, stats_dns) that also return protocol-specific statistics.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over siblings or what prerequisites (e.g., need a capture file) exist. No exclusion criteria or alternative tools are mentioned.

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