tshark_stats

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, nor does it describe potential performance impacts with large files or error conditions. The description lacks transparency for a safe and effective invocation.

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 short (two sentences) and to the point, but could be more structured (e.g., listing all supported types). It is concise but not optimally informative; adding the full enum list would improve clarity without much verbosity.

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 has 3 parameters (2 required) and no output schema. The description does not explain the output format or return structure, nor does it address error handling or file size considerations. Given the complexity and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand invocation consequences.

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 high (100%), so baseline is 3, but the description's list of types ('hierarchy, conversations, and endpoints') contradicts the schema's full enum which also includes 'io', 'http', 'dns'. This omission could mislead the agent into thinking only those three types are available, reducing parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves protocol statistics from pcap files and lists three output types (hierarchy, conversations, endpoints). This distinguishes it from siblings like tshark_filter (filtering) and tshark_decode (decoding). However, the description omits 'io', 'http', and 'dns' types that exist in the schema, making it slightly incomplete but still clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tshark_read_pcap or tshark_filter. No prerequisites or context for selecting the 'type' parameter are provided. The description simply states what it does without usage direction.

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