pcap_summary

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it partly discharges it by disclosing the exact return contents, which implies a non-mutating read. It does not say anything about permissions, cost, behavior on a missing/unregistered evidence_id, or whether the pcap is re-parsed.

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?

Two short sentences with the return payload front-loaded and an example appended. No filler, though the example consumes a full sentence for modest added value.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the sole source of truth. It covers the return fields adequately but omits error behavior and the registration prerequisite beyond an oblique hint, leaving an agent guessing about prerequisites for a forensic evidence tool.

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 and it only partly does: the example shows evidence_id is passed as a short string identifier like 'e-0001', which clarifies the expected format. It does not state that the ID must refer to a registered pcap or what happens otherwise.

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 names the resource (a registered pcap) and enumerates the concrete facts it returns: packet count, time range, protocols, top talkers, services. That is specific enough to distinguish it from run_pcap or get_alerts, though the verb itself ('summarize') is only implied rather than stated.

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 phrase 'for a registered pcap' implies the prerequisite that evidence must be registered first, which is genuinely useful routing information. However, it never states when to use this versus run_pcap or get_alerts, and gives no exclusions or failure conditions.

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