show_protocol_hierarchy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'show' the hierarchy, which implies a read operation, but it does not explain what the path parameter does, what the output contains, or whether any processing or side effects occur.

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 a single concise sentence and leads with the core action. However, the trailing clause 'when protocol composition matters' is ambiguous and adds limited value, slightly reducing structural quality.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description fails to explain the path parameter or provide clear usage context. For a simple one-parameter tool this is still incomplete because parameter semantics are entirely absent and the usage condition is vague.

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%, and the description never mentions the required 'path' parameter. The agent receives no guidance on what value to provide for path, which is a critical gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 states a specific action and resource: showing Wireshark's protocol hierarchy. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_conversations or summarize_capture. The qualifier 'when protocol composition matters' is somewhat vague but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 phrase 'when protocol composition matters' implies a usage context, but it is vague and does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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