follow_tcp_stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the core action and does not reveal any side effects, limitations, or operational details (e.g., whether it requires an active session or what output format to expect). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it lacks any elaboration that could enhance its usefulness.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description only gives a high-level action. It does not explain what 'follow' entails, what the output looks like, or any operational context. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of structured metadata, this is incomplete.

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 schema already describes all three parameters with complete descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add more. It adds no parameter-specific info, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema thoroughly covers the semantics.

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 'Follow and extract the content of a TCP stream' clearly states the tool's action and resource. It is specific and understandable, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like decode_stream or run_tshark, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as needing an active session. It is a bare statement with no contextual direction.

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