tcpdump

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool requires root/privileged access, that it captures in real-time, and that output is raw packet headers (IP, TCP/UDP, payload snippets). It does not mention that capture stops after 'count' packets or that it may be resource-intensive, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the alternative is named, and the output format and privilege requirement are stated compactly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 3-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage, output format, and privilege requirement. It could mention that capture is continuous until count is reached or interrupted, but the schema's count parameter already implies this. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (filt, count, interface) with examples. The description adds the output format context but does not add meaning beyond the schema for the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('capture'), a specific resource ('packets on a network interface'), and explicitly names the sibling tool it is not ('For deeper protocol analysis and display filtering, use tshark'). This clearly distinguishes tcpdump from tshark and other network tools in the sibling list.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('live traffic monitoring, debugging connectivity, or capturing evidence of network activity') and names the alternative (tshark) for deeper analysis. It also notes the root/privileged access requirement, which is a key usage condition.

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