anjian_import_pcap

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 does disclose the read-only nature (使用 TShark 只读分析) and what it does NOT do (不启动全机抓包, 不导出载荷), which is genuinely useful behavioral disclosure distinguishing this from active-capture tools. However, it doesn't disclose anything about required file access permissions, file size limits, output format, or what happens on parsing failure — gaps given zero annotation coverage.

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 that packs purpose, operation mode, exclusions, and safety characteristics into minimal words. Every element earns its place — no filler, no redundancy. This is an exemplary model of concise front-loaded information.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core behavioral contract (read-only, no capture, no export) well. However, given the tool imports/analyzes files into an assessment context, the complete absence of parameter semantics (what assessment_id links to) and no mention of the analysis process or return value leaves meaningful gaps for agent decision-making.

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%, meaning the 2 parameters (assessment_id, file_path) are completely undocumented in the schema beyond their names and types. The description does not explain what assessment_id refers to or what file_path format is expected. With 0% coverage and no parameter explanations, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool uses TShark to read-only analyze a specified PCAP/PCAPNG file, giving a specific verb (import/analyze) plus resource (PCAP). It distinguishes from sibling tools by contrasting against full machine packet capture ('不启动全机抓包'). The purpose is clear, though 'import' in the name suggests ingestion while the description emphasizes analysis, creating slight ambiguity.

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 explicitly says it performs read-only analysis and does NOT start full-machine packet capture or export payloads, giving clear exclusionary guidance. The sibling tools (anjian_run_controlled_active_tool, anjian_scan_source) suggest when an alternative active-capture tool might be used, though no explicit alternative names are given. The 'when to use' context is implied by the read-only emphasis.

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