protocol_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds behavioral context: invokes tshark, returns parsed output, lists supported pairs. No contradictions. Adequate disclosure of side-effect-free operation.

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?

Reasonably concise; key information is front-loaded. The supported-pairs list is a bit lengthy but well-organized and essential for correct usage.

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?

Covers tool purpose, usage context, parameter details, supported values. Lacks return format description but no output schema exists; annotations provide readOnly hint. Adequate for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with good descriptions. Description adds value by compactly listing all supported (protocol, variant) combinations, aiding correct argument selection beyond schema's generic 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?

Clearly states it runs tshark aggregate statistics on a pcap file and returns parsed output. Differentiates from per-packet JSON tools. Lists supported protocol/variant pairs for clarity.

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?

Provides guidance to use for protocol-hierarchy, conversation, endpoint, and per-protocol stat tables, noting compactness vs. per-packet JSON. Implicitly contrasts with sibling tools like decode_protocol or display_filter, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.

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