field_get

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 meaningful behavior by noting the dependency on an active analysis session, but does not disclose what happens with an invalid field_id or session, nor any details about the returned data beyond being 'detailed'.

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, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose and examples, the second gives the workflow and prerequisite.

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 retrieval tool with annotations and an output schema present, the description covers the essential usage flow (get id from field_list, require active session). It does not mention error behavior or output format, but the output schema likely handles that, making the description sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity and sibling context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies field_id by explaining it refers to a protocol field abbreviation and references field_list results, but does not explicitly describe analysis_session_id beyond the prerequisite of an active session. The examples help, but the session parameter semantics remain inferred from name and context.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'detailed information about a specific protocol field', giving clear scope. It provides concrete examples ('ip.src', 'tcp.port') and distinguishes itself from sibling field_list by focusing on a single field's details rather than listing fields.

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 a clear usage prerequisite: 'Use the 'id' value from field_list results', establishing the expected workflow between field_list and field_get. It also states the requirement for an active analysis session, providing context for when the tool is valid to use, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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