alerts_get_alerts_pcap

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a maximum result set size of 100, the required license, and that only PAN NGFW alert types are eligible. The word 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, and no contradictions are visible.

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 with a short summary, context, constraints, license, endpoint, and example. It is front-loaded and each section contributes useful information, though the example JSON adds length.

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?

For a retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, the related APIs, licensing prerequisite, result size cap, and an example request. It does not explain error handling or response structure, but those are not critical for selecting/invoking this tool.

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 provides an example request body using filters, sort, search_from, and search_to, which illustrates valid values. However, it does not explain the semantics of these parameters, and schema description coverage is reported as 0%, leaving the agent to rely on the schema comments. This is partial compensation, not full.

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 opens with 'Retrieve PCAP Packet' and then specifies exactly what is returned: 'a list of alert IDs and the associated PCAP triggering packets of PAN NGFW type alerts'. This is a specific verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from sibling alert tools like alerts_get_alerts, which do not fetch PCAP packets.

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?

It provides clear context by stating these packets are 'returned when running the Get Alerts and Get Extra Incident Data APIs' and lists the required Cortex XSIAM license. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to recognize this is for PCAP retrieval on PAN NGFW alerts.

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