tap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses caching behavior, pagination, and the sharkd limit of 16 specs. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, though reading pcap data is likely safe. The caching detail is a positive addition.

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 and well-structured, using a short introductory sentence followed by clear bullet-point explanations for each parameter. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers parameter semantics, limits, caching, and references server_info. It does not describe the return format, but the output schema is absent, so the description is fairly complete for using the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains the format of specs (with examples), the use of filter (with limitation), and pagination parameters. The alias parameter is required but not described, which is a minor gap.

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 it runs one or more sharkd statistics taps in a single PCAP scan. It identifies the specific resource (sharkd statistics taps) and action (run), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like server_info or iograph.

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 clear usage details: limits (up to 16 specs), pagination (skip/limit), and references server_info for tap discovery. It notes that per-tap filters are only for iograph, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, though it is implied.

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