wireshark_aggregate

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no note on cost, memory, result size, or interaction with display_filter.

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?

Two compact sentences with the capability list front-loaded and no filler. The bracketed tag is slightly awkward but the text is efficient.

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?

For a 12-parameter aggregation tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, this is far too thin. An agent cannot determine how the many field/metric parameters combine or what the result shape will be.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only clarifies that field lists are comma-separated, leaving group_by, distinct, top_k, sort_by/sort_numeric, time_bucket_seconds and the *_fields params essentially unexplained.

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 identifies what the tool produces (counts, groups, distinct values, numeric metrics, top-k, time buckets), which conveys an aggregation/statistics purpose. However, the verb/resource is only implied via the bracketed label '[Primary statistics]' and no capabilities are framed to distinguish it from siblings like wireshark_stats_endpoints or wireshark_stats_conversations.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many stats/aggregate siblings. The agent is left to infer that this is the generic rollup tool versus the more specialized stats_* tools.

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