net_detect

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states inputs and outputs but fails to disclose operational details such as whether the file is modified, read-only nature, output format specifics, or performance constraints.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose, methods, and output with no extraneous content. Information is front-loaded and efficient.

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 network steganography detection and no output schema, the description lacks details about the suspicion score (range, interpretation) and whether individual check results are provided. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's capability.

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 already describes the single parameter 'file_path' as 'Path to PCAP capture file', achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states the tool auto-detects network steganography in PCAP files, lists specific checks (IP header, ICMP, DNS, timing), and mentions output (suspicion score). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools which focus on individual techniques.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is a comprehensive detection tool, but does not state priorities or suggest it as a first-step scan.

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