packet_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the output type and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how missing or invalid frames are handled, or any other side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation context.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key concept of a full decoded protocol tree and adds the scoping detail 'for a single frame'.

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 simple two-parameter query tool, the description captures the essence of the tool's purpose and output. However, it lacks usage guidance, parameter clarity, and behavioral details like error handling, making it only minimally viable.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning or expected format of 'capture' or 'frame_no'. The parameter names are suggestive but the description must compensate for the missing schema descriptions, and it does not.

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 that the tool provides a full decoded protocol tree for a single frame, which distinguishes it from packet_summary and protocol_hierarchy. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'shows', relying on an implied action.

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 phrase 'for a single frame' implies when to use this tool: when detailed per-frame protocol decoding is needed. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools such as packet_summary or protocol_hierarchy.

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