run_pcap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by disclosing the return payload: run id, total alerts, counts by SID with msg, first alerts, and stream_caveats. It also explains stream_caveats as flows Snort cannot inspect for un-ACKed data. Gaps remain around permissions, side effects, and whether the run is persisted, but the disclosed behavior is substantially richer than the 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 front-loaded with the core action and return shape, followed by parameter guidance and an example. It is informative without excessive verbosity, though the long first sentence packs several return fields together.

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?

There are no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage across seven parameters. The description explains the return values and a few parameters, but it is not complete enough to confidently invoke optional parameters such as profile, external_net, rules_text, or flush_one_sided.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only meaningfully covers pcap_id, rules_id via the example, and home_net formatting. It leaves profile, rules_text, external_net, and flush_one_sided unexplained, even though rules_text versus rules_id is especially important to clarify.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Run rules against a registered pcap." It also previews the return payload, making the operation concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings such as validate_rules or pcap_summary, so it stops short of a 5.

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 by requiring a registered pcap and giving a concrete example, and it notes that no raw Lua is accepted. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus validate_rules, pcap_summary, get_alerts, or other siblings.

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