get_capture_time_range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that every packet is assigned to one evenly sized time bucket and describes the return structure. It also notes the prerequisite that capture_id must refer to a currently loaded capture. While it does not explicitly say 'read-only', the 'get' prefix and computational framing make the non-mutating behavior reasonably clear.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence usage rationale, a terse Args block, and a Returns block. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no 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?

For a tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and the high-level return shape. It does not elaborate on error cases or edge behaviors, but the existing coverage plus the output schema makes it sufficiently complete for correct use.

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's Args section is essential and fully compensates. It explains that capture_id is the ID of a currently loaded capture and that bucket_count ranges from 1 through 100 with a default of 20, providing meaning and constraints beyond the bare schema types.

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 uses a specific verb ('Divide') and clearly identifies the resource ('capture time range') and output ('packet and byte-count buckets'). The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like get_capture_metadata or get_packet_timeline because it explicitly describes bucketing behavior, not just listing or summarizing.

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 explicit use cases: 'Use this to locate bursts, quiet intervals, or the portion of a capture worth filtering in more detail.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, which would push it to a 5.

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