stats_http

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what fields are returned, whether it requires a capture to be open, or any side effects. The minimal description offers no behavioral insight beyond the name.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices clarity for brevity; a bit more detail would be beneficial 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?

Despite having an output schema (unknown content), the description fails to explain what the tool returns. Given the tool's complexity (returning HTTP fields), the single sentence is inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's inputs, outputs, and behavior.

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 adds no information about parameters. The two parameters (capture_path, limit) are not explained. For example, 'capture_path' likely refers to a capture file path, but this is not stated. The default value for limit (1000) and its meaning are absent.

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 'Return HTTP request/response fields' clearly states the tool's purpose (verb+resource), but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like stats_dns, stats_tcp, etc. The verb 'Return' is generic and doesn't convey the specific operation within the context of Wireshark's stats functions.

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 or when to prefer alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, common use cases, or exclusions. Agent would have to infer from the name alone.

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