stats_tcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'return,' implying a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, does not modify state, or mention any side effects. The lack of detail on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, output structure) makes it insufficient.

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 extremely short (one sentence), but it is under-specified. While it is concise, it sacrifices clarity and completeness. The sentence 'Return notable TCP stream fields' is too vague to be fully useful; it does not earn its place as a comprehensive summary.

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 that the tool has two parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what 'notable' means, how the limit parameter works, or what fields are returned. The agent needs more context to use this tool correctly, especially with sibling tools covering other protocols.

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 0% description coverage, meaning no descriptions for the parameters 'capture_path' and 'limit' are given in the schema. The description also fails to explain or add meaning to these parameters. For example, it does not clarify what capture_path refers to or how limit affects results. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 states 'Return notable TCP stream fields,' which clearly indicates the action (return) and the resource (TCP stream fields). It is specific about the protocol (TCP), distinguishing it from other stats tools like stats_tls or stats_http. However, 'notable' is somewhat vague, leaving ambiguity about what exactly is returned.

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 versus alternatives such as stats_tls, stats_http, or other TCP-related tools like llm_tcp_health. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contexts mentioned, 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.