get_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful context by stating that it 'iterates through the full capture,' implying a full-scan operation, and it clearly describes read-only reporting behavior. However, it does not address potential performance cost, failure conditions, or whether the capture must remain loaded, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose, a usage hint, and an Args/Returns breakdown. It is concise and avoids fluff, though the Returns section partially repeats the output list already stated in the opening paragraph. This minor redundancy keeps it from a perfect score.

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 single-parameter summary tool, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it iterates over, and what it returns. An output schema is present, so return-value details are not the description's burden. It could be slightly more complete by noting performance expectations given the full-capture iteration, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 must compensate for the undocumented capture_id parameter. It does so explicitly with 'Args: capture_id: ID of a currently loaded capture,' adding the crucial requirement that the capture must be currently loaded. This fully explains the single parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb ('Produce') and resource ('a quick packet-level overview of a loaded capture'), and lists the concrete outputs: packet count, protocol-layer names, timestamps, and duration. It also positions itself as the first analysis call after loading, which distinguishes it from deeper or narrower sibling tools like get_capture_statistics, get_capture_metadata, or get_capture_time_range.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'useful as the first analysis call after loading.' This gives clear temporal/contextual placement among the sibling tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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