get_tcp_performance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool extracts specific tcp.analysis.* fields and computes aggregate statistics, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (though likely none), error conditions, or prerequisites such as file accessibility. The return type is mentioned at a high level, but more behavioral detail could be added.

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 well-structured and concise. The opening sentence states the purpose, the second explains the underlying fields, and the Args/Returns sections provide essential input/output details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool is simple (2 params, 1 required) and has an output schema, so the description need not detail return structure. It covers input meaning, purpose, and usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention any constraints or caveats (e.g., PCAP must contain TCP traffic), which would make it more complete.

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?

The schema has zero descriptions for the two parameters, but the description compensates fully. It explicitly defines file_path as 'Path to the PCAP file' and display_filter as an optional filter with a concrete example ('ip.addr == 10.0.0.1'). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 a specific verb ('Analyse') and a specific resource ('TCP performance') with concrete metrics (RTT, retransmissions, window size, lost segments). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_packet_statistics or get_flow_matrix, which address different aspects of packet analysis.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: for diagnosing network quality via TCP performance analysis. It lists the relevant fields and the type of output (aggregate statistics). However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, so it does not fully meet the highest bar.

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