protocol_hierarchy

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only hints at the output structure (nested tree) but omits whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 a single sentence, making it concise with no wasted words. However, it is too brief; it sacrifices essential information (e.g., parameter explanations) for brevity.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It does not define the required 'alias' parameter or the optional 'display_filter', leading to potential misuse by an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter ('alias' or 'display_filter'). The agent must rely solely on the parameter titles, which are insufficient for correct use.

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 states 'Protocol hierarchy stats — nested tree of frame/byte counts per protocol.' This clearly indicates the tool returns a hierarchical breakdown of protocol statistics. However, it does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'get' or 'list') and fails to differentiate from the sibling tool 'protocol_stats'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'protocol_stats' or 'pcap_summary'. There is no mention of prerequisites, recommended contexts, or exclusions.

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