analysis_follow_stream

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

The description does not disclose side effects or state changes; readOnlyHint is false, so the tool may modify state, but the description is silent on this. It provides useful context about obtaining inputs from analysis_get_frame, but beyond that, behavioral traits are not elaborated beyond what annotations already state.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and protocol examples. Every word is functional, with no redundant phrasing or unnecessary 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?

The description gives the essential purpose and a key usage pointer, and the output schema handles return values. But with 5 parameters and low schema coverage, the lack of explanation for sub_stream and output_mode leaves some ambiguity, so it's not fully complete.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'protocol' and 'filter' should come from analysis_get_frame, which covers the two most important parameters. However, 'sub_stream' and 'output_mode' are left unexplained, and 'analysis_session_id' is not explicitly described.

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 tool's function: reassemble and follow a protocol stream, with examples of supported protocols (TCP, UDP, TLS, HTTP). It also distinguishes itself by referring to analysis_get_frame as the source of protocol and filter values, which is not the tool itself.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use analysis_get_frame's follow_filters to obtain the protocol and filter values, providing a clear usage flow. While it doesn't name alternatives, the reference to a sibling tool gives practical guidance on how to prepare inputs.

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