stats_expert

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, destructive, authentication needs, rate limits). The agent has no information about side effects or permissions required.

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 clutter, but it is too terse to be useful. Conciseness should not come at the expense of completeness; this description omits essential context.

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 tool has one required parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'expert information' includes, how the capture_path is used, or what the output format is. The agent lacks enough information to invoke the tool effectively.

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 input schema has one parameter 'capture_path', but the description provides no semantic meaning for it (e.g., format, constraints, purpose). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess.

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 'Wireshark expert information', but does not specify what type of expert information or how it differs from other stats tools (e.g., stats_conversations, stats_dns). The verb and resource are clear, but the purpose is vague and lacks differentiation from siblings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention contexts, prerequisites, or when not to use it. For a tool with many siblings, this is insufficient.

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