packets_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Return packet summaries for a frame range' but does not disclose whether this is a read operation, whether the capture must be open, what 'summary' means, or any side effects. The description is too minimal to inform an agent about behavioral traits.

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 of seven words, which is concise but severely under-specified. It lacks necessary details such as parameter meanings, usage hints, or behavioral notes. Shortness alone does not earn conciseness points when critical information is missing.

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 presence of an output schema, return values are partially covered, but the input parameters (4 total, 3 required) are not explained. The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, making it incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description needed to explain parameters. However, it only implies start_frame and end_frame via 'frame range,' and completely omits explanation of capture_path and limit. No parameter-level detail is provided, failing to add meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Return packet summaries for a frame range' uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('packet summaries'), and clearly specifies the scope ('frame range'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like packets_fields, packets_filter, or packets_hexdump, which return different aspects of packets.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like packets_summary, packets_filter, or capture_tail_summary. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or any conditions under which this tool is preferred.

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