wireshark_stats_endpoints

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation (no destructive behavior). However, it does not add extra behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as the scope of 'all endpoints' or whether results are aggregate. Given annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 very short and front-loaded with '[Endpoints]', which helps in scanning. It wastes no words, but the brevity sacrifices completeness in other dimensions. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 no output schema and minimal annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of endpoints with metrics). It does not address the return value, nor does it elaborate on the pcap_file parameter. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full 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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'type' parameter by listing valid values, but does not define them or describe the required 'pcap_file' parameter at all. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'endpoints', and includes 'traffic stats', making the tool's purpose explicit. It also lists valid protocol types, which distinguishes it from sibling stats tools like wireshark_stats_conversations or wireshark_stats_protocol_hierarchy.

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 guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like wireshark_stats_conversations or wireshark_stats_protocol_hierarchy. The description only implies usage for endpoint listing but provides no exclusion criteria or context for selection.

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