analysis_open

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool opens a capture file and returns a session ID and summary, but does not mention session lifecycle (e.g., that the session persists until analysis_close is called), potential side effects, or prerequisites like a running capture session. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes the key return value. Each sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague wording.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 6 parameters and many siblings. It does not cover all parameter semantics, does not mention that this is a prerequisite for dependent analysis tools, and lacks guidance on how to obtain the file_path or capture_session_id. The tool's role in the workflow is only implied.

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. It explains the mutual exclusivity of file_path and capture_session_id, but leaves file_name, max_bytes, max_packets, and file_selector undefined. These parameter meanings are not obvious from the schema alone (especially file_selector), so the description is insufficient.

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 a specific action ('Open a capture file for analysis') with a specific resource (capture file) and technology (sharkd). It also distinguishes itself from sibling analysis tools by being the entry point that returns a session ID, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 some guidance on parameter choice ('Either provide file_path directly or capture_session_id') but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like file_tshark_export or analysis_catalog. It implies usage as the first step for analysis but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative scenarios.

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