run_display_filter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the core read operation (apply filter, return packets) but does not mention whether it modifies the session, requires an already-loaded PCAP, or how errors or limits are handled.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and outcome. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it optimally concise.

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 is relatively simple, but the description omits important context such as the requirement that a PCAP must already be loaded via a session, the meaning of the 'limit' parameter, and return format details. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully actionable.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (session_id, filter, limit), so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds little beyond the schema, only implying that 'filter' refers to a display filter expression, which is already stated in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool applies a display filter to the loaded PCAP and returns matching packets. It uses a specific verb ('apply') and resource ('display filter to loaded PCAP'), which distinguishes it from other tools that run tshark or search patterns, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like run_tshark or search_patterns. It implies it operates on a loaded PCAP but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios.

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