pm_asymmetric_hints

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the symptoms detected but omits behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, output format, or limitations. The tool likely reads packet data, but this is not confirmed.

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 sentence with no waste. It front-loads the core purpose immediately. Could benefit from brief parameter hints, but current length is reasonable.

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?

Given the complex domain (packet analysis) and presence of many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It lacks parameter semantics and usage context, making it incomplete despite having an output schema.

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 0%, yet the description does not explain either parameter (file_path, display_filter). The agent cannot infer their roles or constraints from the description alone.

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's function: detecting one-sided capture symptoms like SYN without ACK, lost segments, and ICMP-in-tunnel. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the examples help distinguish its focus from general packet analysis tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like pm_tcp_anomalies or pm_expert_info. The description implies it is for asymmetric capture scenarios but does not explicitly state usage context or alternatives.

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