get_transaction_packets

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

With no annotations providing read-only or destructive hints, the description carries the burden and does so well: 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, and it discloses the return contents including normalized type/key, generated display filter, packet count, truncation flag, and matching summaries. It does not cover error behavior or permission requirements, but it is substantially transparent.

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 front-loads the core action rough and then minimizes necessary caveats about key formats. The Args and Returns blocks are compact, structured, and contain no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 tool's protocol complexity and four parameters, the description covers input semantics, protocol-specific edge cases, the required capture context, and the output shape. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly without needing an additional example.

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?

The schema has no property descriptions, so the Args section is the only semantic guide and it compensates fully. It defines capture_id, enumerates the allowed transaction_type values, explains protocol-specific transaction_key formats, and gives the limit range from 1 through 1000, going well beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a precise resource ('packets belonging to a DNS, DHCP, TCP, EAPOL, or ARP exchange'), and spells out the protocol scope. This distinguishes it from sibling packet-retrieval tools by focusing on transaction- or exchange-based lookups rather than frame numbers, time ranges, or flows.

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 clear context about what kinds of keys apply to which protocols and notes that capture_id must reference a loaded capture. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over the many packet-retrieval siblings, so an agent must infer the usage boundary rather than being told.

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