get_ap_packets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the query mechanism (decoded wlan.bssid field), MAC-input normalization behavior (hyphenated and colon-separated formats accepted), and the return contract including a truncation flag. It doesn't explicitly address side effects or error conditions beyond the field requirement, but for a retrieval tool this is strong coverage.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by one tight technical note and clean Args/Returns sections that are easy to scan. Every sentence earns its place — there is no filler, repetition, or overloaded prose.

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 retrieval tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, this is complete: it covers purpose, prerequisites, full parameter semantics, and the return contract. Since an output schema exists, the Returns section is bonus value, not a gap-filler.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates. Each parameter gains real meaning: capture_id is 'ID of a currently loaded capture,' bssid gets a concrete MAC format example (aa:bb:cc:dd:ee:ff), and limit gets an explicit valid range of 1 through 1000. This goes well beyond the bare name/type pairs 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 opening sentence states the specific action: 'Retrieve IEEE 802.11 packets associated with an access-point BSSID' — a concrete verb, resource, and scope. The AP-BSSID framing clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_client_packets, get_flow_packets, and get_related_packets.

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 an explicit, actionable precondition: the query decodes the wlan.bssid field and therefore requires an IEEE 802.11 capture containing that field, which tells the agent when this tool will fail. It doesn't name alternative tools for non-AP packet queries, but the context is clear enough to route correctly.

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