analysis_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the kinds of information the summary includes, which goes beyond the annotations but does not describe failure scenarios or exact output structure (covered by output schema).

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 that immediately states the purpose and then lists specific details. Every word earns its place with no fluff or redundancy.

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 read-only tool with one parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and content. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., a valid analysis session) or error conditions, but these are partially implied and the output schema fills in return details.

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?

The input schema has one parameter, analysis_session_id, with no description (0% schema coverage). The tool description does not explicitly explain what this parameter represents or how to use it, only vaguely referring to 'the loaded capture file'. This leaves the parameter semantics primarily inferred from the parameter name, with no added value from the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('summary of the loaded capture file'), and lists concrete content (frame count, duration, protocols, time range). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools like analysis_get_statistics or analysis_catalog, which focus on detailed statistics or file listings.

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 implies usage when a high-level overview of the capture is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as analysis_get_statistics or analysis_iograph. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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