wireshark_plot_protocols

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a string containing an ASCII tree and takes a pcap file as input, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior or mention error handling. The behavioral traits are adequately disclosed given the simplicity of the tool.

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 concise: a tag line, a sentence summarizing functionality, and a structured Args/Returns block. Every sentence adds value. The format is easy to parse and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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's simplicity (one parameter, clear output), the description is complete. It explains the return value (ASCII tree string) and the input. The existence of an output schema likely provides additional structure, but the description already covers the key details needed for tool selection and invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description defines 'pcap_file' as 'Path to pcap file', which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type-only definition. This is sufficient for a single simple parameter, though details like format or absolute path are not specified.

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 generates an ASCII tree of protocol hierarchy and shows distribution of protocols. The verb 'Generate' combined with the specific resource 'ASCII tree of protocol hierarchy' makes the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes from siblings like wireshark_stats_protocol_hierarchy which likely focuses on statistical output.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or contrast with related siblings such as wireshark_stats_protocol_hierarchy. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and category.

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