get_protocol_hierarchy

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

The description discloses basic behavior (analyzes pcap, returns hierarchy with packet/bytes/percentage, default max packets). However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid file), performance implications, or whether it is read-only. With no annotations, it leaves some gaps.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. The parameter list is clean and the return description is included. No 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?

The description provides essential information for using the tool correctly, including parameters and return values. However, it lacks guidance on error handling or file constraints, and given the number of sibling tools, it could benefit from more contextual details to avoid confusion with similar tools.

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?

Since schema lacks parameter descriptions, the tool description provides clear, concise explanations for both parameters, including default value, file format, and purpose. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions, though it could add more detail on path requirements.

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 tool provides a protocol hierarchy breakdown similar to Wireshark, using specific verbs (analyze, see) and resource (protocol distribution). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from similar tools like pcap_summary, though the reference to Wireshark's hierarchy view implies uniqueness.

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 description provides a usage context (to see protocol breakdown) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. No exclusions or conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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