quick_triage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It discloses the outputs and input types, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it creates a session when pcap_path is used, or any limitations on processing (e.g., max_packets is in the schema but not described as a bound in the description). Some behavioral context is present, but not as rich as a mutation tool with no annotations would need.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loading the action and expected outputs in the first sentence and clarifying input modes in the second. There is no redundant information or filler.

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 description, combined with the fully-documented six-parameter schema, gives enough to invoke the tool correctly: choose session_id or pcap_path, and optionally tune top_n, max_packets, include_iocs, and include_webshell_hint. The lack of an output schema is partially offset by listing the main output categories, though it does not detail what 'recommended next analysis tracks' would look like.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds important semantic value by stating 'Accepts session_id or pcap_path', clarifying that these are alternative ways to provide input. This goes beyond the schema, which merely lists both as optional without explaining their relationship.

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 ('triage') and resource ('PCAP') and enumerates concrete outputs: protocol overview, top talkers, IOC hints, and recommended next analysis tracks. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on one specific analysis, such as get_top_talkers or detect_port_scan.

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 phrase 'One-shot triage' implies it is an initial overview tool, and the mention of 'recommended next analysis tracks' suggests a starting point. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like summary_stats or get_top_talkers, nor any exclusions or alternative tool recommendations.

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