fow_packet_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description nonetheless adds value beyond them: 'no provider RPC or coding execution,' the fact that provider capability projection is local binding inspection, and that the packet authority is bounded – all behavioral context an agent could not derive from the annotations 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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and then layers route, prerequisites, and effects in clearly delineated blocks. The trailing 'Exact help' JSON template is slightly clunky but is a concrete pointer rather than filler, so the overall structure is efficient.

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 7-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, routing, prerequisites, and effects without needing to explain return values. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, and the tool has no enums. The description restates the view routes (summary, units, gates, working_sheet, history, requirements) and the packet/change address prerequisite, but adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (packet scope: units, gates, requirements, working sheet, history) and immediately bounds it with 'without advancing or executing it,' which cleanly separates it from the fow_packet_advance sibling. An agent can tell what it does and what it does not do without opening the schema.

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 'without advancing or executing it' clause plus the route list tells the agent when this is the right call versus the advance/mutation path, and it names a prerequisite (packet ID and owning change for unambiguous resolution). It stops short of explicitly naming fow_packet_advance as the alternative, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not routing table.

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