stats_by_proto

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

Annotations provide 'readOnlyHint: true', indicating safe read operation, but the description adds no extra behavioral context such as output format, performance implications, or limitations. The bar is lowered by annotations, yet the description fails to add value beyond them.

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 a single concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without extraneous words. Slightly generic but efficient.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is somewhat minimal. It omits any mention of return value structure or typical use cases, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance.

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% for the single parameter 'file_path'; description does not add semantic details beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3. No extra clarification on file path format or constraints.

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 uses a specific verb 'generate' and resource 'protocol hierarchy statistics' for a pcap file, clearly stating the tool's purpose and distinguishing it from siblings like 'protocol_stats' which may have a different scope.

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 versus similar siblings such as 'protocol_stats' or 'summarize_pcap'. The description lacks usage context, exclusions, or alternatives.

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