protocol_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. However, it does not mention any traits such as whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what side effects occur. The agent cannot infer safety or prerequisites from the description alone.

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: a single sentence followed by a clean list of protocol options. Each entry is brief but informative. No redundant or unnecessary text. The structure is easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 that there are three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide comprehensive guidance for correct invocation. While the protocol options are well-covered, the required 'alias' parameter is unexplained, and the output format (e.g., aggregated counts or detailed statistics) is not specified. The agent lacks critical information to use the tool confidently.

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 description adds value by enumerating and explaining the 'protocol' enum values. However, it does not describe the 'alias' parameter (which is required) or the optional 'display_filter'. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent must guess the meaning of 'alias' (likely a capture file alias) and the usage of 'display_filter'. The description partially compensates for the schema's lack of documentation but leaves key parameters unexplained.

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 'Protocol-level aggregate statistics' and enumerates each protocol option with a brief explanation of what kind of statistics are provided (e.g., 'query/response counts by type and return code' for dns). This gives the agent a clear understanding of what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'io_stats' or 'protocol_hierarchy'.

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. While the sibling tools are listed, there is no comparison or contextual cue to help the agent choose between 'protocol_stats' and tools like 'io_stats', 'expert_info', or 'protocol_hierarchy'. The description only lists available protocols without explaining when each is appropriate.

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