follow_stream

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it reassembles a stream as ASCII, implying a read operation, but does not describe output format, side effects, limitations (e.g., binary data conversion), or prerequisites like needing a capture first. This leaves significant behavior unspecified.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It leads with the main action and resource, which is good. It is concise and easy to parse, though it could have included more detail without being verbose.

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 has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain the nature of the output (e.g., text body), the meaning of 'capture' and 'index', or when to use this tool. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke it in a real workflow.

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 explaining parameters. It clarifies that 'protocol' is limited to tcp, udp, or http, but does not explain what 'capture' refers to or what 'index' means (likely a stream index). This leaves key parameters under-explained.

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 action: 'Reassemble one stream as ASCII,' which is a specific verb and resource. It also specifies the protocol options. It is distinct from siblings like packet_summary and packet_detail, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to know what the tool does.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or typical use cases. The only extra instruction is the protocol list, which is parameter-specific, not usage context.

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