wireshark_plot_traffic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It states the tool generates a chart (read operation) but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, file existence requirements, or performance implications. Adequate but minimal.

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?

Description is brief: a one-line title, a one-line purpose, bulleted args and return. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 (2 params, ASCII output), the description covers purpose, parameters, and return type. Minor gaps: no error handling or file validity mention. Output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description defines both parameters: pcap_file as file path and interval with default and units. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool generates an ASCII bar chart of traffic volume (I/O Graph) and lists use cases (traffic spikes, DDoS start times, silence patterns). This verb+resource+scope specification distinguishes it from sibling tools like wireshark_detect_dos_attack.

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?

Description explicitly mentions when the tool is useful (identifying spikes, DDoS, silence). However, it does not provide when-not-to-use or direct alternatives, though the context of sibling tools implies distinction.

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