get_client_packets

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It explains the query mechanism (wlan.addr), MAC normalization, and the input format, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential rate limits, authorization requirements, or the behavior when no packets are found. The return structure is listed but not elaborated.

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 concise and well-structured, with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by technical details, then parameter documentation, and a clear return summary. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 an output schema exists, the return values are partially explained in the description. The tool has moderate complexity with 3 parameters, and the description covers all parameters and the return format. Missing details on edge cases or error handling are minor given the output schema presence.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'client_mac' accepts hyphenated and colon-separated formats, provides an example, and describes the 'limit' range. 'capture_id' is described as an ID of a loaded capture. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 retrieves IEEE 802.11 packets involving a Wi-Fi client MAC address, using the wlan.addr field. It distinguishes from siblings like get_ap_packets by focusing on client MAC, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 implies usage: it's for retrieving packets by client MAC, which is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like get_flow_packets or get_related_packets. The intended context is implied but not fully explicit.

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