packet_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 state the output granularity and the display filter behavior, but it does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, describe truncation or limit effects, or mention any prerequisites for the capture parameter.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the tool's meaning, and it avoids repeating parameter names or schema details.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify what a one-line-per-packet output looks like, how limit interacts with the result, or how this relates to the many sibling analysis tools, leaving an agent to rely on the parameter schema alone.

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 for all three parameters. It adds meaning to display_filter by specifying it as a Wireshark display filter, but it does not explain the required capture parameter or the semantics of limit beyond the schema's default.

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 conveys the core output ('one line per packet') and the optional filtering behavior, which is a distinct resource from siblings like packet_detail or capture_info. It does not over-explain, but it is specific enough to understand what packet_summary produces.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as packet_detail, capture_info, or follow_stream. The only implied usage is when a concise packet list is desired, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction.

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