wireshark_stats_io_graph

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions errors (FileNotFound) and returns (time-series traffic statistics or JSON error), but does not state whether the operation is read-only, nor clarify what 'traffic volume' means (e.g., bytes, packets). Provides good detail on interval parameter but lacks full behavioral context.

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 concise with a clear sectioning: purpose, args, returns, errors, example. Front-loaded with the core purpose. The example is somewhat redundant but not harmful. Efficient use of words without fluff.

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 parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description covers basics: purpose, parameters, error handling, and return type. However, it lacks details on when to use this specific tool compared to siblings, and does not fully describe the pcap_file parameter. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description must compensate. It explains the interval parameter (time interval in seconds, default 1) but does not describe the required pcap_file parameter; it only appears in the example. Missing parameter description for pcap_file, reducing clarity 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 'Traffic volume over time' with an explicit '[I/O Graph]' tag, indicating a time-series graph of traffic. This is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like wireshark_stats_conversations, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from wireshark_plot_traffic, which may also plot traffic data. Lacks sibling differentiation but purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as wireshark_stats_conversations or wireshark_plot_traffic. No when-not or prerequisites provided. The example shows usage but does not explain context.

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