llm_follow_stream_hint

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only hints at the method ('based on packet counts and examples') but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or performance implications. The description carries the full burden but falls short.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structural elements like paragraphs or bullet points. It is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (2 params, no annotations, many siblings), the description is insufficient. It does not differentiate from similar analysis tools or cover usage context, making it incomplete for an agent.

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. It mentions 'packet counts and examples' vaguely relating to parameters but does not explain 'capture_path' or 'limit' semantics. The 'limit' parameter's purpose (max streams?) is unclear.

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 'Rank TCP streams worth following' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings that analyze other aspects like health or summaries, making the purpose clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like llm_tcp_health or llm_investigate. The description does not mention when not to use or provide context for selection.

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